From: Chris Robinson 

SuSe's latest server release uses Reiser as the default FS.

Chris.

Robert Comer wrote:

> > I can't agree on this point, ext2 isn't suitable since it's so easy to
> wipe
> > out with a simple power failure. In a fileserver you have to be able to
> > count
> > on the file system coming back up after a hard poweroff. Fileservers are
> > where everyone stores their data, the file system is critical. ext3 is the
> > only choice.
>
> That's not quite right Geo, there are other journaling files systems that
> are better than ext3.  I would probably (and do) use reiser since it's the
> oldest.
>
> >RH's RAID0 so sucky? RAID0's
> > whole purpose is for speed.
>
> Software based raid 0 is going to be sucky, any of the RAID levels should
> only be done with hardware if you want decent speed.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
> "Geo."  wrote in message
news:3ebc45b0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.05.09.23.40.18.961501{at}austin.rr.com...
> >
> > > http://www.linuxworld.com/2003/0509.barr.html
> > >
> > > Microsoft claims Windows 2003 Server is twice as fast as
Linux, at least
> > > when it's used for file serving. I spoke to Jeremy Allison,
head of the
> > > Samba team, who provided a few insights into the test configurations
> that
> > > don't leap out at the reader because they are hidden away in
appendixes
> to
> > > the benchmark document. Allison feels this, in itself, is
substantially
> > > responsible for the outcome.
> >
> > from the article:
> >
> > >"If you look at the curves in the benchmarks, what is
really really
> obvious
> > is that Samba, or the kernel, isn't running out of steam,"
Allison said.
> > "What's running out of steam is the disk subsystem." <
> >
> > I agree with him on the RAID0 setup it could easily be disk, I don't know
> > anyone using RAID0 for a fileserver (isn't your data important?) but:
> >
> > >RAID 0 wasn't the only poor choice for Linux in the tests.
"They used
> ext3,
> > which is one of the slowest filesystems on Linux," <
> >
> > I can't agree on this point, ext2 isn't suitable since it's so easy to
> wipe
> > out with a simple power failure. In a fileserver you have to be able to
> > count
> > on the file system coming back up after a hard poweroff. Fileservers are
> > where everyone stores their data, the file system is critical. ext3 is the
> > only choice.
> >
> > I also don't agree with his other ramblings about unfair tweaks to the
> > system as he pointed out above, the bottleneck was disk so any other
> tweaks
> > are pointless, even with RAID0 the bottleneck is still disk.
> >
> > This leaves 2 questions in my mind, first how would they have compared if
> > neither machine was running RAID0 but instead were running RAID1 and then
> > running RAID5 (much more common configurations for fileservers) and second
> > but perhaps meaningless to this test is why is RH's RAID0 so sucky?
> RAID0's
> > whole purpose is for speed.
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> >
> >
> >

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