Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Windows 2003 66-95% faster the Linux

[Darth BoBo <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I've done some reading (research for putting RHAS and Oracle on one of 
our big boxes), and there was at least one fairly well written article 
that concluded that even though ext3 appeared to be slower in some 
circumstances, it was far superior to reiser when actually running Oracle.

The article:
http://afro.d-oh.org/docs/oracle-linux-tuning.html

Rick

Michael wrote:

>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).
>>    
>>
-- 
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman



_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion