That's just absurd. When you strip something of all context, you can make it mean anything you want regardless of what the original message was. I was expecting to be quoted badly out of context, but that just takes the cake....
> And perhaps a bit more pertinent to those of use out here managing a
> few Dell T310's without fancy petabyte RAID arrays.
That's *exactly* the point of my talk - to smash this silly stereotype that XFS is only for massive, expensive servers and storage arrays. It is simply not true - there are more consumer NAS devices running XFS in the world than there are servers running XFS. Not to mention DVRs, or the fact that even TVs these days run XFS.
But to address you real world concern, all those benchmarks were run on a low-spec Dell R510 that cost a bit over $AU10,000 _two years ago_. You find them in datacenters everywhere. Hence those results are completely relevant to the low end server users that only have a handful of disks. The graphs clearly show that ext4 cannot scale to the capabilities of even low end servers and storage, let alone the massive servers where XFS dominates.
What you get in a $10000 server these days is the equivalent of a half million dollar supercomputer from five years ago. XFS worked (and still works) better than anything else on those 5 year old supercomputers. The talk showed that XFS also works better than anything else on new, low end hardware that, just co-incidentally, has the with equivalent capability of that five year old supercomputer....
The point is I then extrapolated from there - if ext4 can't handle current low end hardware, then what about the sort of hardware that will be available in 5 years time? There is no coherent plan to acheive this for ext4, while for XFS we are already running on supercomputers that will be the low end of the server market in 5 years time.
The difference is that the XFS developers tend to look years ahead to what we'll need in 5 years time to continue to be relevant to our users. Much of what I talked about I documented in mid-2008 on the XFS wiki. At the time I knew there was 5-10 years worth of work in everything I documented, but it would be necessary to implement it in that same time frame.
In contrast, the ext4 guys are still trying play catchup with what we could do more than 10 years ago and are now trying to work around architectural deficiencies to keep up. Do we really need to keep throwing good money after bad trying to re-invent the wheel with ext4, or should we just cut our losses and move on?
That's the question I'm asking, and to just look at a few of the graphs and ignore the rest of the context of the talk is doing everyone a disservice. We need to talk about issues, not perpetuate myths and stereotypes that are long out of date....