On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 12:16:42AM -0500, Steve Bergman wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 23:47 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Merlin Moncure") wrote:
> > > Ok, you were right. I made some tests and NTFS is just not very
> > > good in the general case.
I trust ReiserFS 3.
I wouldn't trust the 4 before maybe 1-2 years.
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 07:41:29 -0400, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Christopher Browne wrote:
I'm not sure what all SuSE supports; they're about the only other Linx
vendor that EMC would support, and I don't expect t
Were you upset by my message ? I'll try to clarify.
I understood from your email that you are a Windows haters
Well, no, not really. I use Windows everyday and it has its strengths. I
still don't think the average (non-geek) person can really use Linux as a
Desktop OS. The problem I have w
Christopher Browne wrote:
I'm not sure what all SuSE supports; they're about the only other Linx
vendor that EMC would support, and I don't expect that Reiser4 yet
fits into the "supportable" category :-(.
I use quite a bit of SuSE, and although I don't know their official
position on Reiser file
On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 23:47 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Merlin Moncure") wrote:
> > Ok, you were right. I made some tests and NTFS is just not very
> > good in the general case. I've seen some benchmarks for Reiser4
> > that are just amazing.
>
>
The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Merlin Moncure") wrote:
> Ok, you were right. I made some tests and NTFS is just not very
> good in the general case. I've seen some benchmarks for Reiser4
> that are just amazing.
Reiser4 has been sounding real interesting.
The killer problem is thus:
Another possibly useless datapoint on this thread for anyone who's
curious ... open_sync absolutely stinks over NFS at least on Linux. :)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
22 KB files, 1000 of them :
open(), read(), close() : 10.000 files/s
open(), write(), close() : 4.000 files/s
This is quite far from database FS activity, but it's still
amazing, although the disk doesn't even get used. Which is what I like
in Linu
>There is also the fact that NTFS is a very slow filesystem, and
> Linux is
> a lot better than Windows for everything disk, caching and IO related.
Try
> to copy some files in NTFS and in ReiserFS...
I'm not so sure I would agree with such a blanket generalization. I
find
NTFS to be very fa
> > There is also the fact that NTFS is a very slow filesystem, and
> > Linux is
> > a lot better than Windows for everything disk, caching and IO related.
> Try
> > to copy some files in NTFS and in ReiserFS...
>
> I'm not so sure I would agree with such a blanket generalization. I find
> NT
> There is also the fact that NTFS is a very slow filesystem, and
> Linux is
> a lot better than Windows for everything disk, caching and IO related. Try
> to copy some files in NTFS and in ReiserFS...
I'm not so sure I would agree with such a blanket generalization. I find NTFS to be
very
What caught my attention initially was the 300+/sec insert performance.
On 8.0/NTFS/fsync=on, I can't break 100/sec on a 10k rpm ATA disk. My
hardware seems to be more or less in the same league as psql's, so I was
naturally curious if this was a NT/Unix issue, a 7.4/8.0 issue, or a
combination o
>> OSDL did some testing and found Ext3 to be perhaps the worst FS for
>> PostgreSQL
>> -- although this testing was with the default options. Ext3 involved
> an
>> almost 40% write performance penalty compared with Ext2, whereas the
>> penalty
>> for ReiserFS and JFS was less than 10%.
>>
>> Thi
> OSDL did some testing and found Ext3 to be perhaps the worst FS for
> PostgreSQL
> -- although this testing was with the default options. Ext3 involved
an
> almost 40% write performance penalty compared with Ext2, whereas the
> penalty
> for ReiserFS and JFS was less than 10%.
>
> This concurs
14 matches
Mail list logo
