From: "Robert Comer" 

> 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.

You're preaching to the choir. 

- Bob Comer


"Joe Barr"  wrote in message
news:pan.2003.05.10.22.25.38.943216{at}austin.rr.com...
>
> 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