On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained in
the kernel
Would that be due to the system's creator having current living
conditions unconducive to helping maintain his creation?
On 05/04/2010 01:55 AM, Scarletdown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained in
the kernel
Would that be due to the system's creator having current living
conditions
On Tuesday 04 May 2010 01:55:08 Scarletdown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
It's an aggressive migration plan, but reiser3 is just barely maintained
in the kernel
Would that be due to the system's creator having current living
On Monday 03 May 2010 12:10:24 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:34:38 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
It doesn't appear to be a file system issue, but rather a problem with
the initramfs scripts. It could also be rooted in my configuration. I
know that my root=
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:34:38 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink the
filesystem
On 04/29/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Brenner wrote:
Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
B. Alexander wrote:
Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
[snip]
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster
On 04/26/2010 03:25 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
If it took only 2 weeks for the bulk of this effort, I can't
imagine they had to modify a ton of XFS code. IRIX was written in C as is
Linux, so the changes in XFS were probably fairly minor.
Windows is written in C, Linux is written in C.
Ron Johnson put forth on 5/3/2010 9:16 PM:
On 04/29/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Brenner wrote:
Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or
otherwise?
They were posted to this list (within the last 6 months, I think).
I've posted a few in the very recent past, although the
Ron Johnson put forth on 5/3/2010 11:26 PM:
On 04/26/2010 03:25 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
If it took only 2 weeks for the bulk of this effort, I can't
imagine they had to modify a ton of XFS code. IRIX was written in C
as is
Linux, so the changes in XFS were probably fairly minor.
Stan Hoeppner put forth on 5/4/2010 12:32 AM:
2001 was fully 64 bit and had been for many many years. Porting IRIX from
64bit MIPS to 64bit Itanium and other 64bit arches such as Alpha was far
Self correction. That should read, top right, Porting XFS from
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 4/29/2010 7:36 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
In the U.S., given the numbers of
cheap APC, Triplite, and Belkin UPS on the shelves at $big_box_store I'd say
most U.S. desktop users have a UPS. I know I do.
Naw. It ain't so. Most US users don't even know what a UPS is. APC
quit calling
On Thursday 29 April 2010 20:03:20 Joe Brenner wrote:
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
Joe Brenner wrote:
Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
B. Alexander wrote:
Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Rob Owens row...@ptd.net wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:56:21PM +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
Hello Stan,
Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to
defaults if it is
Rob Owens put forth on 4/28/2010 8:26 PM:
Many/most
users don't run a UPS and sudden unexpected power loss is a real
possibility for them.
Really? I was under the impression that laptops and netbooks are now the
primary computer of well over 50% of users worldwide (not counting smart
phones).
Stan Hoeppner
I'd say most U.S. desktop users have a UPS.
I'd say most home desktop users and the majority of small businesses
don't.
I know I do.
I don't. I can't afford it (and I've never lost important data in a
power failure (but then I have little important data to lose)).
Pretty much
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 07:36:39AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Rob Owens put forth on 4/28/2010 8:26 PM:
Many/most
users don't run a UPS and sudden unexpected power loss is a real
possibility for them.
Really? I was under the impression that laptops and netbooks are now the
primary
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:07:00 -0400 (EDT), John Hasler wrote:
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'd say most U.S. desktop users have a UPS.
I'd say most home desktop users and the majority of small
businesses don't.
I know I do.
I don't. I can't afford it (and I've never lost important data in a
On Wednesday 28 April 2010 20:26:46 Rob Owens wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:28:37AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Javier Barroso put forth on 4/26/2010 6:56 AM:
Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better
Stephen Powell put forth on 4/29/2010 8:50 AM:
I agree with John. Stan must hobnob with an elite crowd.
Not really. A computer educated crowd maybe, but by no means elite for most
definitions of elite.
I don't
have a UPS at home either, and I don't know anyone that does.
Be the first.
On Thu, Apr 29 at 9:50, Stephen Powell penned:
I agree with John. Stan must hobnob with an elite crowd. I don't
have a UPS at home either, and I don't know anyone that does. I do
have one at work, but even there most desktop systems aren't on it.
The only reason that my desktop system
On Thu, Apr 29 at 10:26, Stan Hoeppner penned:
In the U.S. most business facilities have more stable power than
residential areas.
Probably true, but I've been living in my house maybe two years longer
than I've been in this office, and I've had fewer power problems at home
than at work.
Rob Owens wrote:
The resilience is due to the way the journal is written, if I
understand correctly. Maybe somebody on this list who understands it
better can confirm or deny. There is a journal_data_writeback option
for ext3 which will speed up writes to the filesystem, but reduce its
From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:b...@iguanasuicide.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:20 AM
Both XFS and Ext3/4 recover through journal replay, and it is usually
enough. Rarely, a manual filesystem check will be required, and xfs_check
is usually much faster than fsck.ext3 or even
Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
B. Alexander wrote:
Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
[snip]
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster
than ext3/ext4.
Thats cool. What about
On Thursday 29 April 2010 14:17:28 Joe Brenner wrote:
Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
B. Alexander wrote:
Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
also seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's
From: Ron Johnson [mailto:ron.l.john...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:49 PM
On 04/24/2010 05:31 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Define hates sudden power outages...Is it recoverable?
They got pretty corrupted. Maybe it's been robustified in the
intervening years.
Apparently,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Rob Owens put forth on 4/28/2010 8:26 PM:
Many/most
users don't run a UPS and sudden unexpected power loss is a real
possibility for them.
Really? I was under the impression that laptops and netbooks are now the
primary
Joe Brenner put forth on 4/29/2010 2:17 PM:
Would you happen to have any links to such benchmarks, unofficial or
otherwise?
Here's a somewhat old one from 2006 using Etch and rather old hardware (old
then and very old now). The numbers are likely somewhat close to what you'd
get with a
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
Joe Brenner wrote:
Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
B. Alexander wrote:
Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've
also seen simple benchmarks on this
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 01:56:21PM +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:28:37AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Javier Barroso put forth on 4/26/2010 6:56 AM:
Hello Stan,
Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to
defaults if it is possible
Kevin Ross put forth on 4/24/2010 9:46 PM:
So if Btrfs were more mature, or if ZFS were included in the kernel, I'd
recommend either of those. But as it is, I think JFS is the way to go.
Except for the fact that JFS has almost zero development and/or bug fix
activity these days. The project
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
(Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
will be, too, probably.)
Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You
apparently need a history lesson.
XFS went into production systems starting in
On 04/26/2010 02:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
(Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
will be, too, probably.)
Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You
apparently need a history lesson.
Mike Castle put forth on 4/25/2010 10:29 AM:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM, B. Alexander stor...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and cons
of the various filesystems?
Google is switching (has switched by now?) all of it's servers over to
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
(Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
will be, too, probably.)
Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you mention. You
apparently need a history lesson.
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'd also guess that XFS seems new to a lot of people because it's never
been the default filesystem for any major Linux distro on i386/AMD64.
I wonder why.
_
Older is not better.
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
XFS has had just as much development support in Linux as EXT3/4 have,
possibly more in some areas.
What does this prove? Development does not equal support.
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Did I forget to mention that XFS is pretty old? 17 years old.
So what's your point?
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
I think you are confusing what is with what should be.
MAA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/26/2010 2:37 AM:
On 04/26/2010 02:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
(Why? ext3 and 4 are exceptionally well supported by Linux and GNU. XFS
will be, too, probably.)
Are you kidding? XFS already is all of the things you
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:10 AM:
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
XFS has had just as much development support in Linux as EXT3/4 have,
possibly more in some areas.
What does this prove? Development does not equal support.
I thought you were talking about developer
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
I think you are confusing what is with
On 4/26/2010 4:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
reflex. I don't buy it, but I shouldn't troll.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/26/2010 3:22 AM:
On 4/26/2010 2:14 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Allums put forth on 4/25/2010 1:19 AM:
Sorry Stan, Your defense of XFS has put me into troll mode. It's a
reflex. I
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:56:21 +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if it
is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to defaults
if it is possible
XFS (and ReiserFS) were having (still have?) problems with GRUB legacy
Javier Barroso put forth on 4/26/2010 6:56 AM:
Hello Stan,
Why Debian Installer doesn't change its default filesystem to xfs if
it is better than ext3 / ext4? I think always is better stick to
defaults if it is possible
Thanks for your explications !
If one disk filesystem was better
On Saturday 24 April 2010 12:53:25 B. Alexander wrote:
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using reiser3.
It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without umounting the
filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus, unlike any
filesystem I have
On Monday 26 April 2010 13:22:19 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Saturday 24 April 2010 12:53:25 B. Alexander wrote:
I have a question on filesystems.
[M]y off-the-cuff recommendation
would be to start migration to btrfs.
Btrfs may not be right for you. The on-disk format has stabilized,
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
[snip] I recommend moving to ext3 (NOT ext4) [snip]
Here we go again? :-)
-thib
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink the
filesystem
to be something I am not willing to do without.
You know, I said the same thing, but then as the kernel and GRUB and the
like
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink the
filesystem
to be something I am not willing to do without.
You know, I said the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
I'm also a current reiser3 user. I find the ability to shrink
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:48:09 B. Alexander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:05:31 B. Alexander wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote:
I'm
On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
So now, I would like to slowly start replacing my reiser3 partitions
with...something else. There are two options, the old standards, e.g.
ext3/4, xfs, etc, and then there are a slew of new filesystems, such as
nilfs2, btrfs and exofs.
You
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of ZFS with Linux RAID plus LVM2.
Even were Sun not owned by Oracle, the likelihood of ZFS in Linux is
zero.
On 4/25/2010 7:18 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of ZFS with Linux RAID plus LVM2.
Even were Sun not owned by Oracle, the likelihood of
On 04/25/2010 09:06 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
On 4/25/2010 7:18 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of ZFS with Linux RAID plus LVM2.
Even were
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM, B. Alexander stor...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and cons
of the various filesystems?
Google is switching (has switched by now?) all of it's servers over to
ext4. A web search will turn up more details
On 4/25/2010 9:28 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 09:06 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
On 4/25/2010 7:18 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2010 01:19 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
I wanted to like ZFS, but Sun is now
Oracle, and thus over it hangs a dark cloud. Besides, we can almost get
the benefits of
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:46:51 -0700
Kevin Ross ke...@familyross.net wrote:
...
There's also JFS, which has been around for a number of years, and is
mature. It doesn't checksum your files, but it does use copy-on-write
(as do Btrfs and ZFS), which goes a long way to keeping your data from
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/24/2010 2:11 PM:
On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and
cons of the various filesystems?
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've also
seen simple benchmarks
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/24/2010 5:48 PM:
Define hates sudden power outages...Is it recoverable?
They got pretty corrupted. Maybe it's been robustified in the
intervening years.
Drop this in the lore category. Any machine using pretty much any modern
filesystem can suffer corruption
On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using
reiser3. It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without
umounting the filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus,
unlike any filesystem I have encountered, it
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ron Johnson ron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using
reiser3. It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without
umounting the filesystem (which
On 04/24/2010 05:31 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
[snip]
XFS is the canonical fs for when you have lots of Big Files. I've also
seen simple benchmarks on this list showing that it's faster than ext3/ext4.
Thats cool. What
On 4/24/2010 10:53 AM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using
reiser3. It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without
umounting the filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus,
unlike any filesystem I have encountered,
67 matches
Mail list logo
