From: "Geo." 

"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?


> 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).

> 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.

> 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? 

> 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.

Geo.

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