From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3ebe89f7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
>>IMHO yes it's common. I have seen a number of Linux servers in
>>production & they all used a JFS of which RFS & XFS seem in my non
>>scientific sample to be the most common. OK only a % of those are/were
>>RH.
>
>
> That last part is very important since it's RH who picked ext3 as the
> default. Other distribs probably pick other defaults, no?
>

I think....that Suse goes for Reiser FS by default. I am unsure wrt
Mandrake because I like ReiserFS because I've always used it & I'm
conservative. However I think our techie recomend wrt running big oracle
instances was XFS.

>
>
>>Suse is quite common over here & I am not sure what the Suse default
>>is (I think it may be RFS). Most of the people looking after Linux boxes
>>tend to be ex-Unix admins so they might be going for JFS or XFS because
>>of prior experience.
>
>
> Or because some app requires it for compatibility? Someone mentioned that in
> another post and I was wondering how common it is to pick a filesystem
> because an app requires it. That's a problem I've never run into on NT, NTFS
> was as backwards compatible with FAT as NT was (if it didn't work it most
> likely was NT not the file system).
>

I've never ever run into this. Most OS'es have abstraction layers such that
the app just goes "write to /home/adam/mydir/myfile.txt" &
doesn't give a monkey's about the actual FS underlying it.


>
>>In fact I would go slightly further wrt SAMBA. I would get a number of
>>exactly the same machines & give one to MS people, one to RH, one to
>>Suse etc & possibly one to a bunch from a BSD. Give em a simple
"make it
>>go as fast as possible wrt samba, the choices are yours" (e.g. wrt fs
>>etc) & then chart the results. If there are any commercial x86 Unix'es
>>who want in then let them have a box too (e.g. SCO or Solaris on x86).
>
>
> You can't do that for one reason, I could pick hardware that works better
> with one than with all the rest. That was the reason I said use a bug
> testing lab, because it doesn't matter how a particular setup works, what
> matters is how the OS works across a range of different hardware
> configurations that you are likely to find in general use.
>

Maybe but in the interests of equality of hardware then all must be tested
on the same kit.

>
>>If it runs on all of them pace Win2K3 then let's see coz given the samba
>>code should be the same on all the *ix'es then you'd be able to get an
>>average for the SAMBA systems (vs Win2K3) as well as a per OS/distrib
>
> view.
>
> Ok, I see what you are saying, but are you going to allow MS to choose the
> hardware platform you test on? 
>

If they paid then they'd choose. However To make the test
"relevant" they'd have to use a major vendor std server. e.g. if
Win2K3 supported Dec...Compaq....HP Alpha CPU then there'd be no real point
in doing Alpha tests coz....etc.etc.

>>That would be usefull for all who are considering serving files using an
>>X86 box & not just derided as marketing fluff.
>
>
> that depends on how it's done, you could run a test like that and still have
> it considered to be slanted for a marketing pitch of one of the products.
>

Not if the various team from the OS distributors each got a machine &
they were happy with the kit on board.

Adam

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