From: "Robert Comer" 

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

I suspected as much, they did a release or 2 ago too.

- Bob Comer


"Chris Robinson"  wrote in
message news:3EBF7F29.824E9F05{at}NOSPAMtotalise.co.uk...
> 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