| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Re: Is Windows 2003 Server really faster than Linux? |
From: Adam Flinton Oh OK it was the "ext3 is the only choice" comment I was querying. Adam >>>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* 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 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.