On May 17, 5:10 am, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:37:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 16:14:14 -0400
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:04:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > The good news is that
2007/5/6, Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But as has already been discussed on this thread, in situations where
> the fileserver is under high memory pressure, any filesystem (XFS or
> ext4) would still end up allocating blocks out of order, resulting i
On Tue, 1 May 2007 13:43:18 -0700
"Cabot, Mason B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello all,
I've been testing the NAS performance of ext3/Openfiler 2.2 against
NTFS/WinXP and have found that NTFS significantly outperforms ext3 for
video workloads. The Windows CIFS client will attempt a poor-man'
2007/5/2, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:17:14PM +0800, Xu CanHao wrote:
> Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
> functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
> ZFS may be inappropriate.
Functional,
On Apr 30, 7:50 am, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most of the people who have been cheerleading for either ZFS or
Reiser4 don't seme to have the necessary technical skills, alas.
- Ted
Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is
5 matches
Mail list logo
