Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest
From: Hans Reiser (reiser@namesys.com)
Date: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 08:56:07 EST
- Next message: Eric Sandeen: "[PATCH] 2.4.21-pre4 seq_read() fix backport"
- Previous message: Nicolas Turro: "any compressed filesystem suggestion ?"
- In reply to: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Next in thread: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Dave Jones: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
Try running with the -E option for gcc, it might be less CPU intensive,
and thus a better FS benchmark.
What do you think?
--
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Next message: Eric Sandeen: "[PATCH] 2.4.21-pre4 seq_read() fix backport"
- Previous message: Nicolas Turro: "any compressed filesystem suggestion ?"
- In reply to: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Next in thread: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Con Kolivas: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Reply: Dave Jones: "Re: [BENCHMARK] ext3, reiser, jfs, xfs effect on contest"
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:25 EST