Yes that is clear. One thing that keeps come up again and again is that there is an assumption that most users will have sufficient knowledge or care enough to switch between filesystems or tweak between options.
Originally Posted by kraftman
In the same way, most Linux-heads abstract XP vs Vista vs Win7 as "fast", "dog-slow", "mostly better", they don't go down into that level of details. For a Linux head they would look at the top level "is it faster" and go with XP or wait for Win7 if they _had_ to use a Microsoft OS.
This is no different. If someone is looking at writing an application using something like SQLite, they generally either won't have complete access to the system (hosted server or end-user system). Consequently their view of supporting different OSes will be based on a high level
"yeah, Ubuntu-9.04 is faster, I'd recommend you my app on this",rather than
"yeah, if you reconfigure the filesystem by modifying the kernel options with this string and changing your fstab entries, you will get good performance with Ubuntu 8-10."
If you have ever supported software, you know that you will *always* go for the first comment and push people away from 8-10. It is all about domain's of expertise and variables that you can control. Most people simply won't get down to modifying those options on a system. Their view outside _their_ domain of expertise is mostly a black box.
The key driver for Michael's performance reviews and comparisons is to drive awareness of system differences. It is bare and simple facts. It is the upstream maintainers who are making decisions on behalf of users. If they have done their jobs right, they are balancing the experience of the end user, the safety of the data and so on. Some users tune, the majority will not and inherit the maintainers view of how things should work. There are many cases of Michael's testing having beneficial results ultimately for the community when the numbers are groked and a correct decision made.
My standard response here is that if there is an accessible collection of directions for changing the configuration then you may have a strong argument for changing the testing. People who live and breathe filesystems assume that everybody knows how to tune the filesystem, but those who don't need to have their hands held very tightly.
Do you know of any accessible guides for tuning filesystems?