On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:34:48 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > If they are accurate,.... THEN they are obviously very relevant.
Erm. No. They're not "obviously" very relevant. I could hypothetically create a benchmark, that's accurate and repeatable, that shows that reiser4 is able to wash a herd of elephants exactly 11.458% faster than ext3. And you would, of course, say "But elephants have nothing to do with file systems", Because they aren't relevant to file systems. Similarly, we've seen benchmarks that show some patch improves NUMA performance by 5% - and those aren't relevant on my laptop because my laptop doesn't do NUMA. And a benchmark of file system performance is only as relevant as it reflects *your* application's use of the filesystem - how fast it can create and remove tiny files isn't relevant if your use of the filesystem is to store large files with long sequential read/write patterns. And the level of compression isn't very relevant if you're using the partition to store already-compressed audio or video. I know somebody who defines a "relevance index" for things, and the measure is "how many cubicles do I have to go to find somebody who actually cares about ABC?" - and for him, that's itself a relevant index, because if it's 0, *he* cares, and if it's 1, his immediate neighbors care and will cause him grief if ABC is a problem. People who are 5 or 6 cubicles away are less likely to give him a hard time, and the people who are 15 to 20 cubicles away are in an entirely separate building. :)
pgp7slhTxfy9C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
