Hi Ignatich,
After seeing the following benchmarks at
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
The Reiser4 benchmarks are so good, I have decided to try the Reiser4
filesystem.
.-.
|
Yeap, I guess that will probably work.
And here I was trying to compile old versions of GRUB from namesys.com.
By the way, do you think the benchmarks from:
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
are accurate?
Hi Peter,
You say that the results may be accurate, but not relevant.
.-.
| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
| TYPE |(secs)|USAGE|
.-.
|REISER4 lzo | 1938 | 278 |
|REISER4 gzip| 2295 | 213 |
|REISER4 | 3462 | 692 |
|EXT2| 4092 | 816 |
Hi Peter,
You say that the results may be accurate, but Whether or not they're
*relevant* is a totally different ball of wax. and
Whether or not they're relevant depends on how well they happen to
reflect your particular usage pattern.
Well, surprise, surprise,.. everyone knows that.
Have a
This is a reply to an email that I accidentally deleted.
COMPILING AND CONFIGURING A NEW KERNEL.
Download a recent kernel from http://www.kernel.org/
I will use the kernel linux-2.6.20.tar.bz2
You will have to change details of the following to suit your purposes.
Save it in /usr/src/
# mv
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:21:19 -0400, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Do you really have to repeat the results in every email you sent?
The following benchmarks are from
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm or,
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:30:49 -0400, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Since you decide to publically respond to a private email, but not only
you did not 'discuss' anything I wrote and in fact cut out most of the
useful information in my reply I guess I will have to repeat my
observations.
Just correcting some errors and typos.
Wouldn't want you to say that the linux kernel mailing list gave you
incorrect info.
COMPILING AND CONFIGURING A NEW KERNEL.
Download a recent kernel from http://www.kernel.org/
I will use the kernel linux-2.6.20.tar.bz2
You will have to change details
Hi Willy,...
With decent CPU, you can reach higher read/write data rates than what a
single off-the-shelf disk can achieve. For this reason, I think that
reiser4 would be worth trying for this particular usage.
Glad to see you are willing to give Reiser4 a go.
Good man.
Krzysztof -- Aren't you missing the point? Twice the speed would be
great,... even a 50% increase,... even a 0% increase.
I checked what bonnie++ actually writes to its test files, for you. It
is about 98-99% zeros.
Still, the results record sequential reads, of 232,729 K/sec, nearly
four times
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:59:14 +0100, Dale Amon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jan does have a point about bad blocks. A couple years ago
I had a relatively new disk start to go bad on random blocks.
I detected it fairly quickly but did have some data loss.
All the compressed archives which were hit
Lennart. Tell me again that these results from
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
are not of interest to you. I still don't understand why you have your
head in the sand.
.-.
|
It is quite possible to build a kernel that has all the drivers built-in,
but still require an initrd file. For instance, if you have a recent
RedHat or Fedora system, '/' may very well be on an LVM partition, which
means you need an initrd to do a 'lvm varyonvg' before mounting your real
It is *highly* recommended that you change the kernel identifier at
least slightly, so that you can install '2.6.20-1.local' without
overlaying
the vendor-supplied 2.6.20-1 kernel. Among other things, this lets you
boot back to the equivalent code level in the vendor kernel,
so you can
Teddy,
It is a pity you don't address the full set of results, when you make
your snide comments.
Now since you have them,... why don't you make reasoned comment about
them.
You can read more here:
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
Jose,
since you clearly have nothing useful to say. Why don't you let Teddy
talk for himself.
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:48:11 +0100, Jose Celestino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Words by [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:13:32PM
-0700]:
Teddy,
It is a pity you don't address the full
Christer Weinigel: Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem
yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing
list, to, AS YOU SAY, shut the fuck up.
Even reading up on the REISER4 filesystem would help.
Applying a little intelligence would undoubtedly help
REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL.
Dave Lynch takes a reasoned approach to REISER4.
Dave Lynch wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready.
Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are
arguing ?
YOU GUYS WILL LAUGH ABOUT THIS:
I forgot the all the statistics that might support the sase for REISER4
inclusion.
Well, here it all is:
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
.-.
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, Richard Knutsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you
referenced to in a reply...
TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed.
A simple cut and paste error.
You have got some rude answers and you
Hi Ignatich,
After seeing the following benchmarks at
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
The Reiser4 benchmarks are so good, I have decided to try the Reiser4
filesystem.
.-.
|
Yeap, I guess that will probably work.
And here I was trying to compile old versions of GRUB from namesys.com.
By the way, do you think the benchmarks from:
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
are accurate?
Hi Peter,
You say that the results may be accurate, but not relevant.
.-.
| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
| TYPE |(secs)|USAGE|
.-.
|REISER4 lzo | 1938 | 278 |
|REISER4 gzip| 2295 | 213 |
|REISER4 | 3462 | 692 |
|EXT2| 4092 | 816 |
Hi Peter,
You say that the results may be accurate, but "Whether or not they're
*relevant* is a totally different ball of wax." and
"Whether or not they're relevant depends on how well they happen to
reflect your particular usage pattern."
Well, surprise, surprise,.. everyone knows that.
Have
This is a reply to an email that I accidentally deleted.
COMPILING AND CONFIGURING A NEW KERNEL.
Download a recent kernel from http://www.kernel.org/
I will use the kernel linux-2.6.20.tar.bz2
You will have to change details of the following to suit your purposes.
Save it in /usr/src/
# mv
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:21:19 -0400, "Jan Harkes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Do you really have to repeat the results in every email you sent?
The following benchmarks are from
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm or,
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:30:49 -0400, "Jan Harkes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>
> Since you decide to publically respond to a private email, but not only
> you did not 'discuss' anything I wrote and in fact cut out most of the
> useful information in my reply I guess I will have to repeat my
>
Just correcting some errors and typos.
Wouldn't want you to say that the linux kernel mailing list gave you
incorrect info.
COMPILING AND CONFIGURING A NEW KERNEL.
Download a recent kernel from http://www.kernel.org/
I will use the kernel linux-2.6.20.tar.bz2
You will have to change details
Hi Willy,...
> With decent CPU, you can reach higher read/write data rates than what a
> single off-the-shelf disk can achieve. For this reason, I think that
> reiser4 would be worth trying for this particular usage.
Glad to see you are willing to give Reiser4 a go.
Good man.
Krzysztof -- Aren't you missing the point? Twice the speed would be
great,... even a 50% increase,... even a 0% increase.
I checked what bonnie++ actually writes to its test files, for you. It
is about 98-99% zeros.
Still, the results record sequential reads, of 232,729 K/sec, nearly
four times
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:59:14 +0100, "Dale Amon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jan does have a point about bad blocks. A couple years ago
> I had a relatively new disk start to go bad on random blocks.
> I detected it fairly quickly but did have some data loss.
>
> All the compressed archives which
Lennart. Tell me again that these results from
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
are not of interest to you. I still don't understand why you have your
head in the sand.
.-.
|
> It is quite possible to build a kernel that has all the drivers built-in,
> but still require an initrd file. For instance, if you have a recent
> RedHat or Fedora system, '/' may very well be on an LVM partition, which
> means you need an initrd to do a 'lvm varyonvg' before mounting your
> It is *highly* recommended that you change the kernel identifier at
> least slightly, so that you can install '2.6.20-1.local' without
> overlaying
> the vendor-supplied 2.6.20-1 kernel. Among other things, this lets you
> boot back to the equivalent code level in the vendor kernel,
> so you
Teddy,
It is a pity you don't address the full set of results, when you make
your snide comments.
Now since you have them,... why don't you make reasoned comment about
them.
You can read more here:
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
Jose,
since you clearly have nothing useful to say. Why don't you let Teddy
talk for himself.
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:48:11 +0100, "Jose Celestino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Words by [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:13:32PM
> -0700]:
> > Teddy,
> >
> > It is a pity you don't
Christer Weinigel: Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem
yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing
list, to, AS YOU SAY, shut the fuck up.
Even reading up on the REISER4 filesystem would help.
Applying a little intelligence would undoubtedly help
REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL.
Dave Lynch takes a reasoned approach to REISER4.
Dave Lynch wrote:
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready.
> >
>
> Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are
>
YOU GUYS WILL LAUGH ABOUT THIS:
I forgot the all the statistics that might support the sase for REISER4
inclusion.
Well, here it all is:
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
.-.
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, "Richard Knutsson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you
> referenced to in a reply...
TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed.
A simple cut and paste error.
> You have got some rude answers
40 matches
Mail list logo
