From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_02A4_01C317AA.AB604C80
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   The benchmark was with redhat linux.  It is only redhat linux that =
matters here.  If redhat can't guide its own customers on how to use its =
own product then they have a problem and have only themselves to blame.

Rich

  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message =
news:3ebe85a2{at}w3.nls.net...
  It's not selective editiing it's trying to keep the quoteback size =
down=20
  (a foreign concept to you I accept).

  Re RH I was unaware that they were the fount of all knowlegedge & the=20
  sole distributor of linux.

  Adam


  Rich wrote:
  >    Adam, must you really selectively edit to keep from looking the=20
  > fool.  I'll repeat my message.  If you want to say that ext3 is=20
  > inappropriate, how about you point out in redhat's customization =
guide=20
  > where redhat suggests so.
  > =20
  >=20
  >        Not for file system as NTFS is the default.  For others, the =
OS
  >     defaults are for a mix of applications and tuning made for file
  >     server performance may not be appropriate for terminal services. =

  >     Microsoft documents the performance tuning suggestions it makes. =

  >     See
  >     =
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/core/fnee_exa_=
sfsu.asp
  >     for an example.
  >=20
  >        Maybe you want to point out similar recomendations in =
redhat's
  >     configuration guide at
  >     =
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-Manual/custom-guide/.
  >=20
  > =20
  > Rich
  > =20
  > =20
  >=20
  >     "Adam Flinton"      > wrote in message
  >     news:3ebe2445{at}w3.nls.net...
  >     Rich wrote:
  >      >    Not for file system as NTFS is the default.
  >=20
  >     &? If your argument was "don't blame the testers for sticking =
with the
  >     RH defaults" then why didn't they stick with the MS/Win2k3 =
defaults?
  >=20
  >=20
  >      >   For others, the OS
  >      > defaults are for a mix of applications and tuning made for =
file
  >     server
  >      > performance may not be appropriate for terminal services.=20
  >=20
  >=20
  >     Maybe ext3 was not appropriate either?
  >=20
  >     Adam

------=_NextPart_000_02A4_01C317AA.AB604C80
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   The
benchmark was with =
redhat=20
linux.  It is only redhat linux that matters here.  If
redhat = can't=20
guide its own customers on how to use its own product then they have a = problem=20
and have only themselves to blame.
 
Rich
 

  "Adam Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com>
= wrote in=20
  message news:3ebe85a2{at}w3.nls.net...It=
's not=20
  selective editiing it's trying to keep the quoteback size down (a =
foreign=20
  concept to you I accept).Re RH I was unaware that they were =
the fount=20
  of all knowlegedge & the sole distributor of=20
  linux.AdamRich
wrote:>    =
Adam, must=20
  you really selectively edit to keep from looking the > =
fool.  I'll=20
  repeat my message.  If you want to say that ext3 is >=20
  inappropriate, how about you point out in redhat's customization guide =

  > where redhat suggests so.> 
>=20
 
>       
Not for file system =
as NTFS=20
  is the default.  For others, the =
OS>    =20
  defaults are for a mix of applications and tuning made for=20
  file>     server
performance may not be =
appropriate=20
  for terminal services.
>     Microsoft =
documents=20
  the performance tuning suggestions it makes. =
>    =20
  See>     http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/core/f=
nee_exa_sfsu.asp">http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en=
-us/core/fnee_exa_sfsu.asp>    =20
  for an example.> =
>       =20
  Maybe you want to point out similar recomendations in=20
  redhat's>    
configuration guide=20
  at>     http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-Manual/custom-gu=
ide/">http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-8.0-Manual/custom-guid=
e/.>=20
  >  >
Rich>  > 
>=20
  >     "Adam
Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com&g=">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com&g=
t;    =20
  <mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.commailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAM_softfab.com
>>>=20
  wrote in message>     news:3ebe2445{at}w3.nls.net...>=
    =20
  Rich wrote:>      =
>    Not=20
  for file system as NTFS is the default.>=20
  >     &? If
your argument was "don't =
blame the=20
  testers for sticking with
the>     RH =
defaults"=20
  then why didn't they stick with the MS/Win2k3 defaults?> =
>=20
  >     
>   For others, =
the=20
  OS>     
> defaults are for a mix =
of=20
  applications and tuning made for
file>    =20
 
server>     
> performance may not =
be=20
  appropriate for terminal services. > >=20
  >     Maybe ext3 was
not appropriate=20
  either?>
>    =20
Adam

------=_NextPart_000_02A4_01C317AA.AB604C80--

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