Ok maybe the author tested other things but he didn't REPORT on anything but fsync results. There's no comparison at all of file system performance other than f

Ok maybe the author tested other things but he didn't REPORT on anything but fsync results. There's no comparison at all of file system performance other than fsync() numbers. > One of the other things clearly mentioned is that b/c of Google's use of an additional FUSE filesystem they take a 30% performance hit Only on one mount point which isn't used for anything lag-related. There's no code on that mount point. There's nothing UI-critical on that mount point. It means your photos might load a bit quicker, but again given that there was no actual numbers or objective information we don't actually know how the two compared. Good job to Motorola to handle that in the kernel, but it contributes nothing to the spectacular claim that the Pixel has 10x more lag than the Moto Z. But given this claim: "They got Moto-Z to performing close to high-end laptop SSDs." I think it's pretty obvious the author only actually looked at fsync(). Unless somehow the Moto-Z is ~5x faster than the storage in an iPhone 7 (which is the gap between an iPhone 7's storage and a high-end laptop SSD), it's obvious bullshit.