From: "Joe Barr" 


Not that it really matters in the context of this benchmark.  The Windows
machine was highly tuned per specs provided by Microsoft after extensive
testing on the exact same hardware they required VeriTest to use.

The Red Hat machine was left untouched by competent hands.

What Red Hat selects as the default fs - or why they select it - doesn't
enter into this at all.  Shupak may want you to believe this was a contest
between a default installation of Windows and a default installation of Red
Hat, but that is a lie.



On Sat, 10 May 2003 16:23:31 -0400, Robert Comer wrote:

>>   Do you think that redhat is picking a bad default and that there are
>>   no
> reasons they selected this?<
>
> I don't really know enough to say at this point, I'd certainly like to
> hear their side of why use ext3 over one of the other FS's. Red Hat's not
> one of my more favorite distributions at this point so I haven't followed
> them very closely.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
>
> "Rich"  wrote in message news:3ebd5152{at}w3.nls.net...
>    Do you think that redhat is picking a bad default and that there are no
> reasons they selected this?
>
> Rich
>
>   "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:3ebd42c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>   >   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.<
>
>   As a default, yes, you can change it if you so choose.
>
>   - Bob Comer
>
>   "Rich"  wrote in message news:3ebd3d47{at}w3.nls.net...
>      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.

--

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