From: "Joe Barr"
I've run across nobody so far who trusts your benchmarks, Shupak.
You smeared your own excrement all over your face doing the same thing in
the OS/2 days. Nothing's really changed except now you gargle it too.
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
|