On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 23:47 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Merlin Moncure") wrote:
> > Ok, you were right. I made some tests and NTFS is just not very
> > good in the general case. I've seen some benchmarks for Reiser4
> > that are just amazing.
>
>
Greetings,
I have observed that in a dump/restore scenario the longest time is
spent on index creation for larger tables, I have a suggestion of how
the performance could be improved thus reducing the time to recover
from a crash. Not sure if this is possible but would definitely be a
nice addi
The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Merlin Moncure") wrote:
> Ok, you were right. I made some tests and NTFS is just not very
> good in the general case. I've seen some benchmarks for Reiser4
> that are just amazing.
Reiser4 has been sounding real interesting.
The killer problem is thus:
Another possibly useless datapoint on this thread for anyone who's
curious ... open_sync absolutely stinks over NFS at least on Linux. :)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud wrote:
22 KB files, 1000 of them :
open(), read(), close() : 10.000 files/s
open(), write(), close() : 4.000 files/s
This is quite far from database FS activity, but it's still
amazing, although the disk doesn't even get used. Which is what I like
in Linu
