From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264188AbUESOHo (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 10:07:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264192AbUESOHn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 10:07:43 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:29599 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264188AbUESOHl (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 10:07:41 -0400 Subject: Re: 1352 NUL bytes at the end of a page? From: Chris Mason To: Steven Cole Cc: hugh@veritas.com, Nick Piggin , elenstev@mesatop.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, support@bitmover.com, Wayne Scott , adi@bitmover.com, akpm@osdl.org, wli@holomorphy.com, Andrea Arcangeli , lm@bitmover.com In-Reply-To: References: <200405190453.31844.elenstev@mesatop.com> <1084968622.27142.5.camel@watt.suse.com> <20040519.072009.92566322.wscott@bitmover.com> <40AB5639.7060806@yahoo.com.au> <70C69E3C-A998-11D8-A7EA-000A95CC3A8A@lanl.gov> <1084973802.27142.14.camel@watt.suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1084975701.27142.25.camel@watt.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:08:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 09:59, Steven Cole wrote: > I went back through the archive to make sure, and since I didn't > specify where I did the timed tests, those timing tests would have > been done on my /home partition, which is reiserfs v3. > > Since I was using different partitions for ext3 and reiserfs on > /dev/hda, a direct comparison between ext3 and reiserfs wouldn't > be completely fair, but a "watching the paint dry" observation > seemed to indicate that reiserfs was significantly faster for this > load. I did press my backup disk into service for this testing, > to eliminate the possibility that this was due to a finicky disk, > and I have a 3.9 G partition which I've formatted first reiserfs, > then ext3, so I could do some fair tests between reiserfs and > ext3 on that disk. But I think the results are already known; > reiserfs opens a can of whoopass for this kind of load. While this is the kind of thing I like to hear, it wasn't really what I was asking ;-) There was a regression between a 2.6.3 mandrake kernel and 2.6.6, was this regression just for reiserfs or was it for all filesystems? If just reiserfs, it might be from the data=ordered and logging changes that went into 2.6.6, so I'm quite interested in figuring things out. -chris