From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0247_01C31795.598C2AB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Adam, must you really selectively edit to keep from looking the fool. =
 I'll repeat my message.  If you want to say that ext3 is inappropriate, =
how about you point out in redhat's customization guide where redhat = suggests so.

     Not for file system as NTFS is the default.  For others, the OS =
defaults are for a mix of applications and tuning made for file server =
performance may not be appropriate for terminal services.  Microsoft =
documents the performance tuning suggestions it makes.  See =
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/core/fnee_exa_=
sfsu.asp for an example.

     Maybe you want to point out similar recomendations in redhat's =
configuration guide at =
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-Manual/custom-guide/.

Rich


  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message =
news:3ebe2445{at}w3.nls.net...
  Rich wrote:
  >    Not for file system as NTFS is the default.

  &? If your argument was "don't blame the testers for sticking with the =

  RH defaults" then why didn't they stick with the MS/Win2k3 defaults?


  >   For others, the OS
  > defaults are for a mix of applications and tuning made for file =
server=20
  > performance may not be appropriate for terminal services. =20


  Maybe ext3 was not appropriate either?

  Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0247_01C31795.598C2AB0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Adam,
must you really =
selectively edit=20
to keep from looking the fool.  I'll repeat my message. 
If = you want=20
to say that ext3 is inappropriate, how about you point out in redhat's=20
customization guide where redhat suggests so.
 

     Not for file system as NTFS is the
default.  =
For=20
  others, the OS defaults are for a mix of applications and tuning made =
for file=20
  server performance may not be appropriate for terminal services.  =

  Microsoft documents the performance tuning suggestions it makes.  =
See http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/core/f=
nee_exa_sfsu.asp">http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en=
-us/core/fnee_exa_sfsu.asp=20
  for an example.   Maybe you want to
point out =
similar=20
  recomendations in redhat's configuration guide at http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-Manual/custom-gu=
ide/">http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-Manual/custom-guid=
e/.
 
Rich
 
 

  "Adam Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>
= wrote in=20
  message news:3ebe2445{at}w3.nls.net...Ri=
ch=20
  wrote:>    Not for file
system as NTFS is the=20
  default.&? If your argument was "don't
blame the testers =
for=20
  sticking with the RH defaults" then why didn't they stick with the =

  MS/Win2k3
defaults?>   For
others, the =
OS>=20
  defaults are for a mix of applications and tuning made for file server =

  > performance may not be appropriate for terminal =
services. =20
  Maybe ext3 was not appropriate=20
either?Adam

------=_NextPart_000_0247_01C31795.598C2AB0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4