xfs: does mkfs.xfs require fancy switches to get decent performance? (was Tux3 Report: How fast can we fsync?)

[Daniel Phillips]

On 05/12/2015 03:35 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>> On 05/12/2015 02:30 PM, David Lang wrote:
>>> You need to get out of the mindset that Ted and Dave are Enemies that you need to overcome, they are
>>> friendly competitors, not Enemies.
>>
>> You are wrong about Dave These are not the words of any friend:
>>
>>   "I don't think I'm alone in my suspicion that there was something
>>   stinky about your numbers." -- Dave Chinner
> 
> you are looking for offense. That just means that something is wrong with them, not that they were
> deliberatly falsified.

I am not mistaken. Dave made sure to eliminate any doubt about
what he meant. He said "Oh, so nicely contrived. But terribly
obvious now that I've found it" among other things.

Good work, Dave. Never mind that we did not hide it.

Let's look at some more of the story. Hirofumi ran the test and
I posted the results and explained the significant. I did not
even know that dbench had fsyncs at that time, since I had never
used it myself, nor that Hirofumi had taken them out in order to
test the things he was interested in. Which turned out to be very
interesting, don't you agree?

Anyway, Hirofumi followed up with a clear explanation, here:

   http://phunq.net/pipermail/tux3/2013-May/002022.html

Instead of accepting that, Dave chose to ride right over it and
carry on with his thinly veiled allegations of intellectual fraud,
using such words as "it's deceptive at best." Dave managed to
insult two people that day.

Dave dismissed the basic breakthrough we had made as "silly
marketing fluff". By now I hope you understand that the result in
question was anything but silly marketing fluff. There are real,
technical reasons that Tux3 wins benchmarks, and the specific
detail that Dave attacked so ungraciously is one of them.

Are you beginning to see who the victim of this mugging was?

>> Basically allegations of cheating. And wrong. Maybe Dave just
>> lives in his own dreamworld where everybody is out to get him, so
>> he has to attack people he views as competitors first.
> 
> you are the one doing the attacking.

Defending, not attacking. There is a distinction.

> Please stop. Take a break if needed, and then get back to
> producing software rather than complaining about how everyone is out to get you.

Dave is not "everyone", and a "shut up" will not fix this.

What will fix this is a simple, professional statement that
an error was made, that there was no fraud or anything even
remotely resembling it, and that instead a technical
contribution was made. It is not even important that it come
from Dave. But it is important that the aspersions that were
cast be recognized for what they were.

By the way, do you remember the scene from "Unforgiven" where
the sherrif is kicking the guy on the ground and saying "I'm
not kicking you?" It feels like that.

As far as who should take a break goes, note that either of
us can stop the thread. Does it necessarily have to be me?

If you would prefer some light reading, you could read "How fast
can we fail?", which I believe is relevant to the question of
whether Tux3 is mergeable or not.

   https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/12/663

Regards,

Daniel