From: "Joe Barr"
I've not run across nobody so far who trusts your benchmarks, Shupak. They
know you and your firm for the liars you are.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Windows 2003 really were faster than Linux, but
nobody believed it because you lie so often, so quickly, so consistantly?
Hee hee hee. Just kind of makes me want to giggle.
On Sat, 10 May 2003 12:23:03 -0700, wrote:
> It's so funny how you repeatedly demonstrate that as an investigative
> reporter you are so bad at both investigation and reporting. The
> following is from the report discussed in your "article" at
> http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_netbench.pdf.
>
> Note: Our initial tests showed that using the TcpAckFrequency registry
> value on the testbed clients running
>
> Windows XP Professional resulted in lower File server performance when
> testing with Red Hat Linux
>
> Advanced Server 2.1 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 Professional. As a result, we
> removed the TcpAckFrequency
>
> registry setting from the testbed client systems running Windows XP
> Professional when testing the Linux
>
> configurations. With the exception of TcpAckFrequency, all other client
> registry changes listed above were in
>
> effect during testing with the Linux configurations.
>
>
> As for your continued rigging claims, are you really accusing redhat of
> rigging the tests by using ext3 as the default filesystem in redhat 9
> installs? That is a stretch even for you and there isn't much that I
> don't think you would claim.
>
> Rich
>
> "Joe Barr" wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.10.18.14.15.105846{at}austin.rr.com...
>
> So you are admitting that the benchmarks were rigged. Good. That's a
> step in the right direction. At that pace and direction, you will
> achieve credibility by the year 2222.
>
> For one side you go to the extreme length of tuning the TCP stack on the
> frigging clients, for the other you say "whatever the default
> provides.":
>
> Do you see why people think you are a twofaced lying sack of shit,
> Shupack?
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 10 May 2003 10:59:18 -0700, wrote:
>
> > I think it is significant to note that a clean install of redhat 9
> > will use ext3. If people think that this is wrong they should ask
> > redhat.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > "Geo." wrote in message
> > news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net... "Adam Flinton"
> > wrote in message news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Why? I've tried (on a variety of work PC'es) the other 3
jfs'es &
> > > we did
> > > "turn off while buzy" tests. ReiserFS, XFS
& IBM JFS all seemed
> > > to
> > > handle it fine. I think (but I'd have to check our test docs) that
> > > for us on that machinery XFS was the fastest.
> >
> > the filesystem that was suggested was ext2, that was what I was
> > disagreeing with, not RFS or XFS or JFS but ext2.
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I
think it is significant to
> > note that a clean install of redhat 9 will use ext3. If people
> > think that this is wrong they should ask redhat.
> > > size=2>Rich
> style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
> > BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> > "Geo." < >
href="georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in
> > message >
href="news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net..."A
dam
> > Flinton" < >
href="adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>
> > wrote in message >
href="news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > > I can't agree on this point, ext2 isn't suitable since it's so
> > easy towipe> > 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 isthe> >
only choice.>
> > >>> Why? I've tried
(on a variety of work PC'es)
> > the other 3 jfs'es & we
did> "turn off while
> > buzy" tests. ReiserFS, XFS & IBM JFS all seemed
to>
> > handle it fine. I think (but I'd have to check our test docs) that
> > for> us on that machinery XFS was the
fastest.the
> > filesystem that was suggested was ext2, that was what I was
> > disagreeingwith, not RFS or XFS or JFS but
> >
ext2.Geo.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> It's so
funny how you repeatedly
> demonstrate that as an investigative reporter you are so bad at both
> investigation and reporting. The following is from the report
> discussed in your "article" at
href="http" target="new">http">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_netbench.pdf">http
://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_netbench.pdf.
> style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>
> Note: Our
> initial tests showed that using the TcpAckFrequency registry value on
> the testbed clients running
> Windows XP Professional resulted in lower File server
> performance when testing with Red Hat Linux Advanced
> Server 2.1 and Red Hat Linux 8.0 Professional. As a result, we removed
> the TcpAckFrequency registry setting
from the testbed
> client systems running Windows XP Professional when testing the
> Linux configurations. With the exception of
> TcpAckFrequency, all other client registry changes listed above were
> in effect during testing with the Linux
>
configurations.
> size=2>As for your continued rigging claims, are you really accusing
> redhat of rigging the tests by using ext3 as the default filesystem in
> redhat 9 installs? That is a stretch even for you and there isn't
> much that I don't think you would claim.
face=Arial size=2>
size=2>Rich
> style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> "Joe Barr" <
href="warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
> wrote in message
href="news:pan.2003.05.10.18.14.15.105846{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.1
0.18.14.15.105846{at}austin.rr.com...So
> you are admitting that the benchmarks were rigged. Good.
> That's astep in the right direction. At that pace and
> direction, you will achievecredibility by the year
2222.For
> one side you go to the extreme length of tuning the TCP stack on
> thefrigging clients, for the other you say "whatever
the default
> provides.":Do you see why people think you
are a twofaced lying
> sack of shit,
Shupack?On Sat, 10 May
2003 10:59:18
> -0700,
wrote:> I think it
is
> significant to note that a clean install of redhat 9
> will> use
ext3. If people think that this
> is wrong they should ask redhat.>
> Rich>
> > "Geo." <
href="georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in message
>
href="news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net...>&nbs
p;
> "Adam Flinton" <
href="adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>
> wrote in message>
href="news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net...>
> > > > 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.> >
>> >
> >> > Why? I've
tried (on a variety of work
> PC'es) the other 3 jfs'es &
we> >
> did>
> "turn off while buzy" tests.
> ReiserFS, XFS & IBM JFS all seemed
to> >
> handle it fine. I think (but I'd have to check our test docs) that
> for> > us on that
machinery XFS was the
> fastest.> >
the filesystem that was suggested
> was ext2, that was what I was>
disagreeing with, not
> RFS or XFS or JFS but ext2.>
> Geo.>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
> Transitional//EN">>
<HTML><HEAD>> <META
> http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;
> charset=iso-8859-1">> <META
content="MSHTML 6.00.3790.0"
> name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>>
> </HEAD>> <BODY
bgColor=#ffffff>>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> I think it
> is significant to> note that a clean install of
redhat 9 will use
> ext3. If people think> that this is
wrong they should
> ask redhat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT>
> face=Arial
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>
> size=2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
>
<DIV> </DIV>>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
> style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px;>
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT:
> 0px">>
<DIV>"Geo." <<A href="
href='georger{at}nls.net>'>mailto:georger{at}nl">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>'>mailto:georger{at}nl
s.net">georger{at}nls.net</A>>>
> wrote in message <A>
href="
href='news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net..."Adam'
>news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebd20e9{at}w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
"Adam>
> Flinton"
<<A>
href="
href='adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>'>m">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>'>m
ailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com</A>>
>
> wrote in
message<BR><A>
href="
href='news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>'>news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net">news:3ebcc745$1{at}w3.nls.net</A>...
<BR><BR>>>
> > I can't agree on this point, ext2 isn't suitable since it's so
> easy>
to<BR>wipe<BR>> > out
> with a simple power failure. In a
fileserver> you
> have to be able to<BR>> >
count<BR>>
> > on the file>
system coming back up after a
> hard poweroff. Fileservers
are<BR>>>
> > where everyone stores their data, the file system is critical.
> ext3>
is<BR>the<BR>> > only
> choice.<BR>>
><BR>><BR>>
> Why?> I've tried (on a variety
of work PC'es) the
> other 3 jfs'es & we>
> did<BR>>
"turn off while buzy" tests.
> ReiserFS, XFS &>
IBM JFS all seemed
> to<BR>> handle it fine. I think (but I'd have
> to> check our test docs) that
for<BR>>
> us on that machinery XFS was the>
> fastest.<BR><BR>the filesystem that was
suggested was ext2,
> that was> what I was
disagreeing<BR>with, not
> RFS or XFS or JFS but>
>
ext2.<BR><BR>Geo.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BO
DY></HTML>--
>
--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/1.45)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 106/1 2000 633/267
|