Re: XFS for 2.4

[bill davidsen]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312020919410.13692-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Marcelo Tosatti  <marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

| A development tree is much different from a stable tree. You cant just
| simply backport generic VFS changes just because everybody agreed with
| them on the development tree.
| 
| My whole point is "2.6 is almost out of the door and its so much better".  
| Its much faster, much cleaner. 

Yes, a development tree is much different than a stable tree, and even
though the number has gone to 2.6, it's very much a development tree, in
that it's still being used by the same people, and probably not getting
a lot of new testing. Stability is unlikely to be production quality
until fixes go in for problems in mass testing, which won't happen until
it shows up in a vendor release, which won't happen until the vendors
test and clean up what they find... In other words, I don't expect it to
be "really stable" for six months at least, maybe a year.

As for "much faster," let's say that I don't see that on any apples to
apples benchmark. If you measure new threading against 2.4 threading
there is a significant gain, but for anything else the gains just don't
seem to warrant a "much" and there are some regressions shown in other
people's data.

I think 2.6 has new features, it is more scalable, but other than
threads I don't see any huge performance gains.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
-
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/