Hi, Firstly, I dont see any reason to get confrontational here.
Stanley Thomas wrote: >> on ? I mean its been about 7 years into this decade why not upgrade >> the platform >> a bit.. > does it really matter?? circumstances probably. i mean who cares. hee hee. I am sure more people will care about how systems perform on modern day hardware, using the the platform they are likely to deploy today - rather than what was relevant in the dark ages. I think you yourself made a statement in the first email about using the right build optimisations for the hardware.... So I would say yes, it does matter. And besides, every admin I know does not go with general good feelings, they work with specifics on the ground. >> Anyway, I shall have a xfs/ext3 test for people in a few days time - I >> hope to >> get sometime next weekend and will do some numbers. And Ext4 is just >> around the >> bend with even more tuneables :) > > all the best. do remeber that benchmarks produce different results in > different situations. u suit the one thats more favorable for you. and > i do not remember mentioning anything abt ext4. it was abt xfs and > ext3 i believe. Absolutely, different environments produce different results and usage scenarios will depend on specific role requirements - but your writing off ext3 across the board was a bit juvenile. Its nice to see you accept that. And w.r.t ext4 - well, I've been meaning to look at that for a while now, this might just be a good chance to do so. > "Nothing, though, is for free and there is a slight performance and > memory penalty associated with kernel modules. There is a little more > code that a loadable module must provide and this and the extra data > structures take a little more memory. There is also a level of > indirection introduced that makes accesses of kernel resources > slightly less efficient for modules." > from : http://tldp.org/LDP/tlk/modules/modules.html I hope you realise that turning off the sound card in BIOS is not going to drop module support in the kernel....if so, this does not related back directly to your statement about disabling sound cards in the bios of a machine... Besides, are you now saying that everyone should rebuild the kernel to remove .ko support and just statically link in everything they need ? Isnt this a bit arcane or even a bit over the top to expect - as you said your doc was for new people - to be able to do ? or even need to do ? > not everything is numbers. some things happen because thats the way it > is. many unwanted modules or even a few of them depending on your > hardware will make you system a little less efficient. more resources > used by the kernel and modules gives the user a little less to play > around with. any code that is loaded with consume resources. unless you can quantify this, I am going to write your statements off as noise. You are talking about performance tuning a machine and make statements like 'not everything is numbers...' - sounds a bit offbalance, dont you think ? > "lvm already gives you span and mirror" thats news to my ears hee hee. yeah, you might want to go read up on one some of these things, they have, after all, been around for a few years now. > i could do swapping with the old mdraid just like i can do with the > new one. i dunno what you are hinting at. a suggestion, u shouldnt be > speaking about something if you are unsure. I know what I am talking about. You, however, seem confused. My point was that if you do need that capability, mdraid might be something you want to consider. Otherwise lvm should cater directly to your needs. hotswapping a blockdevice with lvm requires more command line flufftery than most people will care about. > yes dude. thats the way these tests were conducted. *shrug* ok, just making sure didnt seem clear from what you said. I still cant reproduce the results you posted though. Want to share a bit more info about the hardware behind that ? >> Also, things that will make a major difference here are your CPU load >> levels and the hba being used. > oh boy... u gotta be kiddin me. ofcouse yes. ugh, no not at all - most of these things depend a lot on the these factors. eg. on a machine with a dmraid setup ( think: the nvraid, ich family, some of the sil setups etc ) you will find its faster to do mdraid setup's than use the underlying h/w fakeraid setup. And given that sort of a requirement you are much better off with an Opteron based solution than a Xeon one - given the same budget, you are going to achieve 10 - 12% highter throughput by not changing anything else - use the same drives, same network cards, chassis etc. ( well, the same budget being the guide ) Perhaps this is beyond the scope of where the conversation started from, just using specifics to give you an idea of whats involved and where. And, we've not even gone into elevator-logic or data layout patterns as yet :) > mr.singh i seriously believe that u think that im writting stuff > simply by pullin it outta thin air. i do try my best to write stuff > based on facts. This is the exact situation I'd hoped to avoid when I said dont misread my first email. I am not saying anything along the lines of 'you dream up facts'- but what I am saying is that enforce your stuff with hard facts and numbers, people are more likely to understand exactly what you are trying to achieve, and the circumstances under which they apply. eg. saying use linux and apache because they are better than windows and iis, does not have the same appeal as - use linux and apache since it can give you 8.5% [1] higher delivery rate on php generated content than iis on win2k3 server. So what I am saying is that, while you are aware of the specifics, put them down along with the comments and dont make wide across-the-board generalisations. > thanx mr. singh. lets try to avoid the "i have a the only rabbit with > 2 ears" kindda conversation. Dear Mr Thomas, I dont know what that phrase implies... do tell more. Regards, - K [1]: The 8.5% figure quoted from a client evaluation that was done in early March 2007 between a stock win2k3+iis install and RHEL4/apache - we were not allowed to tune anything. The machine was a dell 2950 with 8 GB ram, and 6x73 GB 15k sas drives. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
