On Monday 03 May 2010 12:10:24 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 16:34:38 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > It doesn't appear to be a file system issue, but rather a problem with
> > the initramfs scripts. It could also be rooted in my configuration. I
> > know that my "root
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 01:55:08 Scarletdown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
> wrote:
> > It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained
> > in the kernel
>
> Would that be due to the system's creator having current living
> conditions un
On 05/04/2010 01:55 AM, Scarletdown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained in
the kernel
Would that be due to the system's creator having current living
conditions unconducive to helping
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
> It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained in
> the kernel
Would that be due to the system's creator having current living
conditions unconducive to helping maintain his creation?
http://en.wikipedia
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 5/4/2010 12:32 AM:
> 2001 was fully 64 bit and had been for many many years. Porting IRIX from
> 64bit MIPS to 64bit Itanium and other 64bit arches such as Alpha was far
Self correction. That should read, top right, "Porting XFS from"
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Ron Johnson put forth on 5/3/2010 11:26 PM:
> On 04/26/2010 03:25 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> [snip]
>> If it took only 2 weeks for the bulk of this effort, I can't
>> imagine they had to modify a ton of XFS code. IRIX was written in C
>> as is
>> Linux, so the changes in XFS were probably fairly m
Ron Johnson put forth on 5/3/2010 9:16 PM:
> On 04/29/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Brenner wrote:
>> Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or
>> otherwise?
>
> They were posted to this list (within the last 6 months, I think).
I've posted a few in the very recent past, although
On 04/26/2010 03:25 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
> If it took only 2 weeks for the bulk of this effort, I can't
imagine they had to modify a ton of XFS code. IRIX was written in C as is
Linux, so the changes in XFS were probably fairly minor.
Windows is written in C, Linux is written in C.
On 04/29/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Brenner wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
B. Alexander wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster
than ext3/ext4.
Thats cool. What about Lot
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
> For me, it is only partly about my hardware. It is also about my data.
> I have backups, but I didn't used to, and I would just as soon not
> have to go through a restore process. And even a simple power
> outage that wouldn't harm hardware
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:34:38 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
> >
> > b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> > > I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink the
> > > f
On Thursday 29 April 2010 20:03:20 Joe Brenner wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > Joe Brenner wrote:
> > > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > B. Alexander wrote:
> > > > > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > >> XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
> > > > >> also seen simple
On 4/29/2010 7:36 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
In the U.S., given the numbers of
cheap APC, Triplite, and Belkin UPS on the shelves at $big_box_store I'd say
most U.S. desktop users have a UPS. I know I do.
Naw. It ain't so. Most US users don't even know what a UPS is. APC
quit calling thei
ow...@netptc.net put forth on 4/29/2010 2:26 PM:
> Also I might have an issue with Stan's use of AND. While surge
> protection of printers is a good idea, most UPS vendors advise
> against connecting the printer to the UPS for power protection
> Larry
Most inkjets on a UPS are fine (for small jo
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> Joe Brenner wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > B. Alexander wrote:
> > > > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > >> XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
> > > >> also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster
> > > >> than ex
Joe Brenner put forth on 4/29/2010 2:17 PM:
> Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or
> otherwise?
Here's a somewhat old one from 2006 using Etch and rather old hardware (old
then and very old now). The numbers are likely somewhat close to what you'd
get with a curre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Rob Owens put forth on 4/28/2010 8:26 PM:
>> Many/most
>> users don't run a UPS and sudden unexpected power loss is a real
>> possibility for them.
>
> Really? I was under the impression that laptops and netbooks are now the
>
> From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.john...@cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:49 PM
>
> On 04/24/2010 05:31 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
> >
> > Define "hates sudden power outages"...Is it recoverable?
> >
>
> They got pretty corrupted. Maybe it's been robustified in the
> intervening years.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> It's not because the printer makes the power unclean or otherwise interferes
> with the correct functioning of the UPS while mains is working. They
> recommend against connecting printers because printers draw a large amount of
> power, dramatically reducing the
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:48:03 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday 29 April 2010 14:26:17 owens wrote:
>> Also I might have an issue with Stan's use of AND. While surge
>> protection of printers is a good idea, most UPS vendors advise against
>> connecting the printer to the UPS for
On Thursday 29 April 2010 14:26:17 ow...@netptc.net wrote:
> > Original Message
> >From: zlinux...@wowway.com
> >To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> >Subject: RE: [OT] Home UPS (was Filesystem recommendations)
> >Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
&g
ow...@netptc.net wrote:
>>
>> Original Message
>> From: zlinux...@wowway.com
>> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>> Subject: RE: [OT] Home UPS (was Filesystem recommendations)
>> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>
&g
On Thursday 29 April 2010 14:17:28 Joe Brenner wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > B. Alexander wrote:
> > > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >> XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
> > >> also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster
> > >> than ext3/ext4.
> >
>
>
>
> Original Message
>From: zlinux...@wowway.com
>To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>Subject: RE: [OT] Home UPS (was Filesystem recommendations)
>Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:54:47 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:26:52 -0400 (EDT), Stan Hoeppne
Ron Johnson wrote:
> B. Alexander wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> >> XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
> >> also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster
> >> than ext3/ext4.
> > Thats cool. What about Lots of Little Files? That wa
> From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:b...@iguanasuicide.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:20 AM
>
> Both XFS and Ext3/4 recover through journal replay, and it is usually
> enough. Rarely, a manual filesystem check will be required, and xfs_check
> is usually much faster than fsck.ext3 or e
Rob Owens wrote:
The resilience is due to the way the journal is written, if I
understand correctly. Maybe somebody on this list who understands it
better can confirm or deny. There is a journal_data_writeback option
for ext3 which will speed up writes to the filesystem, but reduce its
resilien
Kelly Clowers put forth on 4/29/2010 12:07 PM:
> Furthermore most almost all power outages here are very brief,
> and I end up not having to shutdown at all, which is just pure
> convenience. For me, my Back-UPS XS 1000 was one of my
> best computer-related purchases.
I've got an old APC RM1400NE
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:54, Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:26:52 -0400 (EDT), Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, the way I've always looked at the residential side of the UPS debate
>> is to ask myself this question: Is it worth spending $100 to surge and
>> power backup protec
On Thursday 29 April 2010 10:54:47 Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:26:52 -0400 (EDT), Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Is it worth spending $100 to
> > surge and power backup protect my $1000 PC and printer? For me that
> > answer is an emphatic yes.
>
> You make a strong case. But I come
On Thu, Apr 29 at 10:26, Stan Hoeppner penned:
>
> In the U.S. most business facilities have more stable power than
> residential areas.
Probably true, but I've been living in my house maybe two years longer
than I've been in this office, and I've had fewer power problems at home
than at work.
On Thu, Apr 29 at 9:50, Stephen Powell penned:
>
> I agree with John. Stan must hobnob with an elite crowd. I don't
> have a UPS at home either, and I don't know anyone that does. I do
> have one at work, but even there most desktop systems aren't on it.
> The only reason that my desktop syste
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:26:52 -0400 (EDT), Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> Anyway, the way I've always looked at the residential side of the UPS debate
> is to ask myself this question: Is it worth spending $100 to surge and
> power backup protect my $1000 PC and printer? For me that answer is an
> emph
Stephen Powell put forth on 4/29/2010 8:50 AM:
> I agree with John. Stan must hobnob with an elite crowd.
Not really. A computer educated crowd maybe, but by no means elite for most
definitions of elite.
> I don't
> have a UPS at home either, and I don't know anyone that does.
Be the first.
On Wednesday 28 April 2010 20:26:46 Rob Owens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:28:37AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Javier Barroso put forth on 4/26/2010 6:56 AM:
> > > Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
> > > it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:07:00 -0400 (EDT), John Hasler wrote:
> Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I'd say most U.S. desktop users have a UPS.
>
> I'd say most home desktop users and the majority of small
> businesses don't.
>>
>> I know I do.
>
> I don't. I can't afford it (and I've never lost important da
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 07:36:39AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Rob Owens put forth on 4/28/2010 8:26 PM:
> > Many/most
> > users don't run a UPS and sudden unexpected power loss is a real
> > possibility for them.
>
> Really? I was under the impression that laptops and netbooks are now the
> pr
Stan Hoeppner
> I'd say most U.S. desktop users have a UPS.
I'd say most home desktop users and the majority of small businesses
don't.
> I know I do.
I don't. I can't afford it (and I've never lost important data in a
power failure (but then I have little important data to lose)).
> Pretty mu
Rob Owens put forth on 4/28/2010 8:26 PM:
> Many/most
> users don't run a UPS and sudden unexpected power loss is a real
> possibility for them.
Really? I was under the impression that laptops and netbooks are now the
primary computer of well over 50% of users worldwide (not counting smart
phones
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:56:21PM +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
>> Hello Stan,
>>
>> Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
>> it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to
>> defaults if it is pos
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:28:37AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Javier Barroso put forth on 4/26/2010 6:56 AM:
>
> > Hello Stan,
> >
> > Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
> > it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to
> > defaults if it is
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:56:21PM +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
> > Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
> >> On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >>> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
> >>
> >> Sorry Stan, Your
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:48:09 B. Alexander wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
> b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> > On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
> > > b...@iguanasuicide.net> wr
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
> > b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> > > I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the abilit
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
> b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> > I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink the
> > filesystem
> > to be something I am not willing to do without.
>
> You know,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink the
> filesystem
> to be something I am not willing to do without.
>
You know, I said the same thing, but then as the kernel and GRUB and the
l
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
[snip] I recommend moving to ext3 (NOT ext4) [snip]
Here we go again? :-)
-thib
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bd
On Monday 26 April 2010 13:22:19 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Saturday 24 April 2010 12:53:25 B. Alexander wrote:
> > I have a question on filesystems.
>
> [M]y off-the-cuff recommendation
> would be to start migration to btrfs.
Btrfs may not be right for you. The on-disk format has stabil
On Saturday 24 April 2010 12:53:25 B. Alexander wrote:
> I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using reiser3.
> It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without umounting the
> filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus, unlike any
> filesystem I have enc
Javier Barroso put forth on 4/26/2010 6:56 AM:
> Hello Stan,
>
> Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
> it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to
> defaults if it is possible
>
> Thanks for your explications !
If one disk filesystem was bet
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:56:21 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
> Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if it
> is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to defaults
> if it is possible
XFS (and ReiserFS) were having (still have?) problems with GRUB legacy
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
>> On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
>>
>> Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
>> reflex. I don't buy it,
On 4/26/2010 4:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
I
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
> On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
>
> Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
> reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
>
> I think you are confusing what is
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:10 AM:
> On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> XFS has had just as much development support in Linux as EXT3/4 have,
>> possibly more in some areas.
>
> What does this prove? Development does not equal support.
I thought you were talking about deve
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/26/2010 2:37 AM:
> On 04/26/2010 02:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
>>
>>> (Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
>>> will be, too, probably.)
>>
>> Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the th
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
I think you are confusing what is with what should be.
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Did I forget to mention that XFS is pretty old? 17 years old.
So what's your point?
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
XFS has had just as much development support in Linux as EXT3/4 have,
possibly more in some areas.
What does this prove? Development does not equal support.
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'd also guess that XFS seems "new" to a lot of people because it's never
been the default filesystem for any major Linux distro on i386/AMD64.
I wonder why.
_
Older is not better.
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@l
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
(Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
will be, too, probably.)
Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You
apparently need a history lesson.
No
Mike Castle put forth on 4/25/2010 10:29 AM:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM, B. Alexander wrote:
>> Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and cons
>> of the various filesystems?
>
> Google is switching (has switched by now?) all of it's servers over to
> ext4. A
On 04/26/2010 02:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
(Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
will be, too, probably.)
Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You
apparently need a history lesson.
XF
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
> (Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
> will be, too, probably.)
Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You
apparently need a history lesson.
XFS went into production systems starting in 19
Kevin Ross put forth on 4/24/2010 9:46 PM:
> So if Btrfs were more mature, or if ZFS were included in the kernel, I'd
> recommend either of those. But as it is, I think JFS is the way to go.
Except for the fact that JFS has almost zero development and/or bug fix
activity these days. The project
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/24/2010 5:48 PM:
>> Define "hates sudden power outages"...Is it recoverable?
>>
>
> They got pretty corrupted. Maybe it's been robustified in the
> intervening years.
Drop this in the "lore" category. Any machine using pretty much any modern
filesystem can suffer cor
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/24/2010 2:11 PM:
> On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
>> Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and
>> cons of the various filesystems?
>>
>
> XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've also
> seen simple ben
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:46:51 -0700
Kevin Ross wrote:
...
> There's also JFS, which has been around for a number of years, and is
> mature. It doesn't checksum your files, but it does use copy-on-write
> (as do Btrfs and ZFS), which goes a long way to keeping your data from
> getting corrupte
On 4/25/2010 9:28 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 09:06 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
On 4/25/2010 7:18 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of Z
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM, B. Alexander wrote:
> Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and cons
> of the various filesystems?
Google is switching (has switched by now?) all of it's servers over to
ext4. A web search will turn up more details on the subject.
On 04/25/2010 09:06 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
On 4/25/2010 7:18 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of ZFS with Linux RAID plus LVM2.
Even were
On 4/25/2010 7:18 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of ZFS with Linux RAID plus LVM2.
Even were Sun not owned by Oracle, the likelihood of Z
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of ZFS with Linux RAID plus LVM2.
Even were Sun not owned by Oracle, the likelihood of ZFS in Linux is
zero. http://kerneltrap.o
On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
So now, I would like to slowly start replacing my reiser3 partitions
with...something else. There are two options, the old standards, e.g.
ext3/4, xfs, etc, and then there are a slew of new filesystems, such as
nilfs2, btrfs and exofs.
You pro
On 4/24/2010 10:53 AM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using
reiser3. It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without
umounting the filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus,
unlike any filesystem I have encountered, i
On 04/24/2010 05:31 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've also
seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster than ext3/ext4.
Thats cool. What about Lots of Little
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using
>> reiser3. It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without
>> umounting the filesystem (which has since be
On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using
reiser3. It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without
umounting the filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus,
unlike any filesystem I have encountered, it
Hi,
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using reiser3.
It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without umounting the
filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus, unlike any filesystem
I have encountered, it could be reduced in size.
Well, now reiser3 i
79 matches
Mail list logo
