Re: performance of filesystem xattrs with Samba4

[Hans Reiser]

tridge@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> So while I sympathise with you wanting reiser4 to be tuned for "big"
> storage, please remember that a good proportion of the installs are
> likely to be running "in-memory" workloads.
>  
I agree that in-memory workloads are important, and that is why we 
compress on flush rather than compressing on write for our compression 
plugin, and it is why we should spend some time optimizing reiser4 to 
make its code paths more lightweight for the in-memory case.  At the 
same time, I think that the workloads where the filesystem matters the 
most are the ones that access the disk.  With computers, in a large 
percentage of the time that people notice themselves waiting, it is the 
disk drive they are waiting on.

Sigh, there are so many things we should optimize for, and it will be 
years before we have hit all the important ones.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/