Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
I've found Reiser to be quite a bit faster and effecient with space than
Ext3. I haven't really tested XFS that much.
> That article frolm VeriTest doesn't do things justice either... it
> compares Win2003 to RHAS 2.1 with a 2.4.9 derivative kernel that's what,
> a year and a half old if not more?
>
> I think if I went back through the LKML archives, I can find issues with
> 2.4.9.
>
> I think VeriTest did a dis-service to its readers. There is an
> enterprise 2.4.18 based kernel they should have tested with.
>
> I'm not suprised with the disk I/O either... ext3 from back then (and in
> most cases now) is very slow (as is any journaling file system). I'd
> have liked to see them square off against reiserfs or xfs (for that
> enterprise feel :-)
>
> I'd like to see a 2003 vs. a 2.6 based system or heck, 2003 vs. FreeBSD
> 5.1 (since it'll be out in a month or so).
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact