* H. Peter Anvin: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> Benchmarks are actually a bit tricky because as far as I can tell, >> once you hash the directories, they are tainted even if you mount your >> file system with ext2. > > That's what fsck -D is for. Ah, cool, I didn't know that it works the other way, too. Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- References:
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Magnus Damm <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Chris Mason <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Florian Weimer <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Thomas Glanzmann <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Thomas Glanzmann <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: Florian Weimer <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- Prev by Date: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- Next by Date: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- Previous by thread: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- Next by thread: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
- Index(es):
 |