From: "Joe Barr" 


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.
 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">
>   "Geo." <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..."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
>   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.

--

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