So why on earth did you test Zen rather than stock + reiser4?
I'm quite interested in knowing this.
Also, do you take into consideration the suggestions in comments?
I think SSDs are fine, but tests done to HDDs are necessary too.
Also, recommended tweaks from each FS should be tested too.
I think Phoronix tests show too much statistics but also lacks a lot more depth, that could make it more interesting both for developers and advanced users/admins.
Even if my nerd growing inside me loves to see statistics and tests, I think the graphical representation you use is quite bloated. I would prefer one big table with all on it instead tons of them with bars.
Do you know if PTS is used in Linux kernel development and distros and accepting suggestions or patches from them? What about Linux Foundation and this project? Maybe your project with tons more hardware diversity and help from other developers could get into a more powerful project.
Michael: While I appreciate your work here, I would like to see more complete replies so we can learn and know your opinion to different messages posted here. Maybe this could benefit to both sides. I know this sometimes can be a lot time consuming, but replying fast is not mandatory. You could do one big reply to all topics instead just one.
Reiser 3 also lost data regularly for me. What bothered me even more than that was the "why should we care" reaction from the developers to the bug report. I can't find it anymore but the carelessness was shocking. Unless the Reiser 4 developers don't even remotely know the Reiser 3 ones, I wouldn't use it if it were the only FS other than FAT16.
Also, is nobody irritated by this sentence from the article?
"Aside from some of the tests failing, we ran into no other issues with Reiser4."
Well, sometimes it just doesn't work for no apparent reason, but when it does, it mostly does its job. WTF?
Get a clue. It's been said over and over in this thread that michael used broken reiser4 patches instead of "normal" ones provided by edward shishkin.
So the fact that Michael tested the wrong patches is an excuse for a summary that implies what he tested was fine for the most part?
There are two issues, one is the Reiser4 fans complaint about the patch set that was tested. I won't even pretend to be know or even care about this one as I am unlikely to ever use a Reiser filesystem.
The second issue is with the content of the report on what was tested. This is, hard as it may be to believe, a separate issue. Saying "it did well, but some tests would not run" implies it's a lot better performing than saying "While it passed some tests, the entire range of test applications could not complete on this filesystem" even if logically they are much the same.
I'm sorry, but my take of what was written was implying that the patchset he tested was fit for use, while in fact his own test results show it is clearly NOT fit for use. (This is a filesystem, test failure is NOT acceptable!)