--- Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i haven't played with jfs at all, afaik it is the
> most recent of the
> bunch. it has interesting features but it seems both
> xfs and reiser are
> considerably more advanced and tested.
Actually, JFS is the oldest of them all. JFS was the
original
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, John Summerfield wrote:
> How many of these fields are absolutely critical?
>
> struct stat {
> unsigned short st_dev;
> unsigned short __pad1;
> unsigned long st_ino;
> unsigned short st_mode;
> unsigned short st_nlink;
> unsi
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Bill Crawford wrote:
> It would depend on the application ... ext3 is actually better for
> some applications (according to a quick web search a while back, a
> "real world" benchmark with some databases showed ext3 a winner).
> ReiserFS on the other hand was optimized for Sq
>
>
> John,
>
> The suggestion that knowing what files are open was only intended as a
> suggestion to completely eliminate any fsck - it wasn't my primary
> assertion. My primary assertion is: changes to the _structure_ on the disk
> must be reflected on the disk ASAP. This can be done by many
>
> ANYWAY... I'm using Linux for business these days and I like it a lot but
> want a better file system. I've heard of quite a few new ones - new to me
> anyway - and when I asked about it, nobody really replied with the kind of
> response I was hoping for. Ext2 is all I've got working. I ran
Assuming 100 Mbit LAN, how does one decide whether one needs an
expensive server with high-performance SCSI? What are the guidelines?
Given a basic contemporary Celeron with a recent ATA-100 disk drive
performing at (according to hdparm) 30 Mbytes/sec or better, it seems
certain to me that th
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2002, Florin Andrei wrote:
> > 3. XFS
> > This is interesting, because the XFS code base is actually very mature
> > and stable. That's why, i guess, the Linux port became stable so
> > quickly: because only the Linux "hooks" had to be made stabl
On 18 Apr 2002, Florin Andrei wrote:
> 3. XFS
> This is interesting, because the XFS code base is actually very mature
> and stable. That's why, i guess, the Linux port became stable so
> quickly: because only the Linux "hooks" had to be made stable, while the
> core was already mature.
xfs is st
On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 14:50, Richard Troy wrote:
>
> cry for "performance." My rethort was, "Yeah, some performance while
> you're rebuilding your system from tape! Hah!"
:-)
> So, I think it'd be really neat if someone would put together a small
> table outlining what's available for our belov
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Richard Troy wrote:
> ANYWAY... I'm using Linux for business these days and I like it a lot but
> want a better file system. I've heard of quite a few new ones - new to me
> anyway - and when I asked about it, nobody really replied with the kind of
> response I was hoping for
Well, that'll teach me to interject without paying attention to the
bigger scope... Anyway, these seem to be some good docs:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fs7/
http://people.spoiled.org/jha/ext3-faq.html
I personally found it *very* easy to use EXT3. Just upgrade
Well, Matt,
your post brought a smile. Thanks for your gentle response. As a closing
remark on my use of the word "stupid", yes, I chose that word with some
abandon - I'm aware of its potentially offensive reception. However, I
recall the arguments at the time quite vividly. My coleagues urged m
You're right, I didn't follow your argument completely but rather only a
short subset slamming Unix. I get your gist, though I would have to see
statistics to see whether making such required updates wouldn't reduce
performance too extensively.
I made the mistake of assuming you were a newbie who
> If "rtroy" supposition was held up disk performance would suffer
> dramatically.
This is the very old and very tired dogmatic argument which has been
disproven repeatedly throughout computing history. ...It could also be
that you have not understood - perhaps I have not articulated - the
argum
John,
The suggestion that knowing what files are open was only intended as a
suggestion to completely eliminate any fsck - it wasn't my primary
assertion. My primary assertion is: changes to the _structure_ on the disk
must be reflected on the disk ASAP. This can be done by many different
means
If "rtroy" supposition was held up disk performance would suffer
dramatically. All OS-es use write caches, including Windows, though you
have the option to turn it off. Not using caches leads to poor disk
performance, especially on multi-user systems, disks with small buffers,
and where you are re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Here's my imperative: Every change to the structure on disk _must_be_
> written to disk that very instant. On-disk structure changes are _the_
> most critical aspect. Caching disk structure is fine, but having
> changes in cache that are not yet reflected on disk is, OK
On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 02:41, Kort E Patterson wrote:
>
> My current project uses ext3 on "/boot" and "/" Raid-1 partitions
> (boots off the raid partitions so raid-1 support must also be
> compiled directly into the kernel, and the --omit-raid-modules
> option used with mkinitrd). I haven't had
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 02:41:36 -0700
Kort E Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ronald W. Heiby" wrote:
> >
> > Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 11:26:11 AM, Richard wrote:
> > > Please note that in my experience, ext3 doesn't work. When I upgraded my
> > > systems from RH 6.2 to 7.2, I tried to tel
"Ronald W. Heiby" wrote:
>
> Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 11:26:11 AM, Richard wrote:
> > Please note that in my experience, ext3 doesn't work. When I upgraded my
> > systems from RH 6.2 to 7.2, I tried to tell it to use ext3, the default,
> > on several systems and each time was rewarded with a sy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 11:26:11 AM, Richard wrote:
> Please note that in my experience, ext3 doesn't work. When I upgraded my
> systems from RH 6.2 to 7.2, I tried to tell it to use ext3, the default,
> on several systems and each time was rewarde
21 matches
Mail list logo
