On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:34:14AM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
> Carlos Carvalho wrote:
>
>> I use reiser3 and xfs. reiser3 is very good with many small files. A
>> simple test shows interactively perceptible results: removing large
>> files is faster with xfs, removing large directories (ex. the
Moshe Yudkowsky schrieb:
Carlos Carvalho wrote:
I use reiser3 and xfs. reiser3 is very good with many small files. A
simple test shows interactively perceptible results: removing large
files is faster with xfs, removing large directories (ex. the kernel
tree) is faster with reiser3.
My curren
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
Carlos Carvalho wrote:
I use reiser3 and xfs. reiser3 is very good with many small files. A
simple test shows interactively perceptible results: removing large
files is faster with xfs, removing large directories (ex. the kernel
tree) is faster with reiser3.
My current
Carlos Carvalho wrote:
I use reiser3 and xfs. reiser3 is very good with many small files. A
simple test shows interactively perceptible results: removing large
files is faster with xfs, removing large directories (ex. the kernel
tree) is faster with reiser3.
My current main concern about XFS a
Moshe Yudkowsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 20 January 2008 21:19:
>Thanks for the tips, and in particular:
>
>Iustin Pop wrote:
>
>> - if you download torrents, fragmentation is a real problem, so use a
>> filesystem that knows how to preallocate space (XFS and maybe ext4;
>> for
On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
One partitionable RAID-10, perhaps, then partition as needed. Read
the discussion here about performance of LVM and RAID. I personally
don't do LVM unless I know I will have to have great flexibility of
configuration and can give up perform
Thanks for the tips, and in particular:
Iustin Pop wrote:
- if you download torrents, fragmentation is a real problem, so use a
filesystem that knows how to preallocate space (XFS and maybe ext4;
for XFS use xfs_io to set a bigger extend size for where you
download)
That's a ver
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:24:46PM -0600, Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
> Question: with the same number of physical drives, do I get better
> performance with one large md-based drive, or do I get better
> performance if I have several smaller md-based drives?
No expert here, but my opinion:
- md
Moshe Yudkowsky wrote:
Question: with the same number of physical drives, do I get better
performance with one large md-based drive, or do I get better
performance if I have several smaller md-based drives?
Situation: dual CPU, 4 drives (which I will set up as RAID-1 after
being terrorized b
Question: with the same number of physical drives, do I get better
performance with one large md-based drive, or do I get better
performance if I have several smaller md-based drives?
Situation: dual CPU, 4 drives (which I will set up as RAID-1 after being
terrorized by the anti-RAID-5 polemi
10 matches
Mail list logo