Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 November 2008 07:05:39 Dale wrote:
>
>> I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a
>> question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people
>> have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory
>>
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 07:05:39 Dale wrote:
> I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a
> question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people
> have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory
> chip, hard drive some new chemic
Dale wrote:
I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a
question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people
have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
"Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
> don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
> that either
> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
> and Linux deve
Volker Armin Hemmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, and according to this benchmark
> > http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
> > reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
>
> they tested crap.
>
> As I wrote in the other mail. XFS and reiserfs turn on barriers by default,
> ext3 turns them
Volker Armin Hemmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but
> a
> lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't
> care
> about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%.
"Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, and according to this benchmark
> http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
> reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
The ext filesystem is slow if you meter the right times.
If you e.g. untar a linux kernel tarball and just take th
W.Kenworthy wrote:
> ...
>
>> I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
>> don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
>> that either
>> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
>> and Linux developers caused people to
Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>>
>>> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale:
>>>
>>>
>>>
I wouldn't use XFS unless
it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and fou
081126 W.Kenworthy wrote:
>> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem,
>> but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers
>> caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons.
> A is the answer. Hans Reiser is by all accounts a brilliant,
> eccentric but deeply flawed individual. He did
On Mittwoch 26 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is
> > still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file
> > system.
> >
> > Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has broug
...
> I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I
> don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think
> that either
> A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser
> and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for
> non-tech
> I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is
> still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file
> system.
>
> Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought
> home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 17:24 -0200, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
...
> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
> usage), no?
>
...
No, for me ext2 = continual lost data issues from even th
On Dienstag 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > so use whatever you want, get a nice cheap dlt from ebay and let a
> > cronjob write to it. No 'lazy' problem. Very secure.
>
> I live in Brasil, and due to huge taxes, poor infrastructure and the
> currency exchange ratio, comp
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 21:24:48 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
> usage), no?
I don't think that
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 20:37:13 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the
> filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously
> bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is
> also hardly affecte
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 19:57:19 Paul Hartman wrote:
> I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will
> never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file
> server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over
> and the FS stayed functional,
>> [...] I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
>> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
>> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
>> usage), no?
>
> fedora turns on 4k stack - well knowing that it kills xfs. Do you want to
> re
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower
> > but a lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs
> > don't care about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance
> > g
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto schrieb:
> I have no expertise to decide on that matter,
> but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by
> default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop
> usage), no?
>
Most people and companies / organisations use M$
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> > Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the
> > filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously
> > bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is
> > also hardly affecte
> reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a
> lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care
> about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%.
I read an article about that, and if I recall correctly th
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
> I was able to recover much of the data with reiserfsck --rebuild-tree,
> but some of the files had part of their content replaced with a string
> of null bytes. I heard somewhere that reiserfs is infamous for
> replacing file conte
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> >> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale:
> >>> I wouldn't use XFS unless
> >>> it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and fo
> Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the
> filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously
> bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is
> also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means
> mostly reading files, an
I wouldn't use XFS unless
it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it
does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I
had to reinstall from scratch.
>>> Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it t
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale:
>>
>>
>>> I wouldn't use XFS unless
>>> it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it
>>> does not like power failures at all.
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 11:07:26 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> It ZFS was under GPL, it did not appear on FreeBSD and Mac OS X.
>
> What I expect from a promising new filesystem is that is may be integrated
> in a large variety of Platforms.
>
> Note that I am a supporter of collaboration in OSS and
Am Montag, den 24.11.2008, 16:12 +0200 schrieb GMail:
> On Monday 24 November 2008 08:28:33 Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > @William: If one or more of the PVs is a Network Block Device, you're not
> > bound to the local machine.
You could also use iSCSI. On your client you'll get SCSI-device-nodes
(/dev
Volker Armin Hemmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this
> > > filestem will become popular on many OS platforms.
> >
> > btrfs is under GPL...
>
> you can stop right here. Jörg thinks that the GPL is restrictive and the CPPL
>
Nicolas Sebrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > > btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for
> > > everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with
> > > r4+compression.
> >
>
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale:
>
>
>> I wouldn't use XFS unless
>> it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it
>> does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I
>> had to reinstall from scratch.
>
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale:
> I wouldn't use XFS unless
> it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it
> does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I
> had to reinstall from scratch.
Hmm, I use it because of its resis
On Montag 24 November 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 November 2008 00:15:55 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Montag 24 November 2008, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > > > btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will bec
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 00:15:55 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Montag 24 November 2008, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > > btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for
> > > > everybody, stable, effici
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for
> > everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with
> > r4+compression.
>
> Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no
On Montag 24 November 2008, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for
> > > everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with
> > > r4+compression.
> >
>
On Monday 24 November 2008 23:47:14 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for
> > > everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with
> > > r4+compressio
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>
>> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 13:49:38 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
>>
>>> On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>>>
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale:
Volker Armin Hemmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> he is not - but after the invention is implemented, the inventor is not
> needed
> anymore ;)
I hope this is not the reason for putting him into prison ;-)
Note the sign at the Springfield prison:
"If you commited murder, you'd be home by now.
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 14:50:30 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> he is not - but after the invention is implemented, the inventor is not
> needed anymore ;)
Yes, that's right.
Bye...
Dirk
Roy Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> W.Kenworthy wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >> Kobboi wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote:
> >>>
> Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of
> gentoo machin
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 15:12:00 schrieb GMail:
> How does it cope with network outages though? In my experience, LVM is not
> exactly graceful when one of it's PVs goes away
Don't know. I just know it's possible but never did it myself.
Bye...
Dirk
On 24 Nov 2008, at 14:12, GMail wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2008 07:58:55 Roy Wright wrote:
W.Kenworthy wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote:
Kobboi wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote:
Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a n
GMail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 24 November 2008 13:07:34 Dale wrote:
> > I used to be subscribed to the mailing list, thought about using one or
> > the other. Just before I unsubscribed, there were some people trying to
> > get it back up and going. I'm not sure how that went or i
On Monday 24 November 2008 07:58:55 Roy Wright wrote:
> W.Kenworthy wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >> Kobboi wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of
> gentoo
On Monday 24 November 2008 08:28:33 Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> @William: If one or more of the PVs is a Network Block Device, you're not
> bound to the local machine.
I'd never thought of that, but it makes sense. PV wants a raw block device and
couldn't care less if it leads to local disk or someth
On Monday 24 November 2008 13:07:34 Dale wrote:
> I used to be subscribed to the mailing list, thought about using one or
> the other. Just before I unsubscribed, there were some people trying to
> get it back up and going. I'm not sure how that went or if it is still
> being worked on or not. I
On Monday 24 November 2008 14:49:38 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale:
> > > Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-)
> >
> > Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for
On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 13:49:38 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> > On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > > Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale:
> > > > Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stab
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 13:49:38 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale:
> > > Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-)
> >
> > Well, with its inventor being imprisoned
On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale:
> > Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-)
>
> Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so,
> you'll have to be patient. I for one wait for b
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale:
> Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-)
Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so, you'll
have to be patient. I for one wait for btrfs.
Bye...
Dirk
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Montag 24 November 2008, Dale wrote:
>
>>
>> I knew it was something like that. I thought it was networkable but was
>> not sure. You guys sure know more about that than I do.
>>
>
> - evms was used for a while by Suse - I don't know if they still do.
> -
On Montag 24 November 2008, Dale wrote:
> Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Montag, 24. November 2008 02:06:04 schrieb Dale:
> >> I think it is LVMS or something. Linux volume management system?? I
> >> think Redhat calls it EVMS or something.
> >
> > Two things, (more ore less) one purpose:
> >
> > 1
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Montag, 24. November 2008 02:06:04 schrieb Dale:
>
>
>> I think it is LVMS or something. Linux volume management system?? I
>> think Redhat calls it EVMS or something.
>>
>
> Two things, (more ore less) one purpose:
>
> 1) LVM: Logical Volume Management
> 2) EVM
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 02:06:04 schrieb Dale:
> I think it is LVMS or something. Linux volume management system?? I
> think Redhat calls it EVMS or something.
Two things, (more ore less) one purpose:
1) LVM: Logical Volume Management
2) EVMS: Enterprise Volume Management System
1) is us
W.Kenworthy wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote:
Kobboi wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote:
Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of
gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte
is unused, bu
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Kobboi wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote:
> >
> >> Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of
> >> gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte
> >> is unused, b
Kobboi wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote:
>
>> Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of
>> gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte
>> is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of
> gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte
> is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via
> NFS and samba for back
62 matches
Mail list logo
