Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[reiserfs\-list\]\s+Re\:\s+benchmarks\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[reiserfs\-list\]\s+Re\:\s+benchmarks\s*$/: 108 ]

Total 108 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Xuan Baldauf <xuan--reiserfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:49:42 +0200; Maybe reiserfs manages to be faster than XFS for database applications, but not by being faster at large files, but by offering sophisticated transaction support and having database objects at the fi; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00593.html (12,379 bytes)
2. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:54:14 +0200 (CEST); Because word documents average 0.1 - 1MB. Dare to say that it was designed for Unix like file systems with inodes? Cheers Seth; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00594.html (9,934 bytes)
3. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Xuan Baldauf <xuan--reiserfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:24:57 +0200; Ah. So you just mean speed (quantity), not some features (quality)- It was designed for file systems which have directories which never shrink and are searched linearily rather then by other possible; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00596.html (11,908 bytes)
4. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:52:42 +0200 (CEST); Yes, windows stuff tends to bloat. Most stuff placed on windows networks are things like word and excel documents which average 0.5MB and powerpoint presentations of more the 5MB. But what do you mea; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00597.html (11,210 bytes)
5. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 05:21:16 +1200; I hope that someday, there will be an emancipation from NFS away (or an NFS without those problems). Maybe Samba|CIFS can be a replacement someday. CIFS has some overhead, too, due to it's windows or; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00598.html (10,166 bytes)
6. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Rahul Jain <rahul@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:05:44 -0400; Actually, XFS supports full ACLs, which is a useful feature when serving up samba shares, especially to NT/2k clients.; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00602.html (11,271 bytes)
7. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Richard Sharpe <sharpe@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:36:00 +0930; Chris Wedgwood wrote: On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 06:24:57PM +0200, Xuan Baldauf wrote: I hope that someday, there will be an emancipation from NFS away (or an NFS without those problems). Maybe Samba|CI; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00609.html (11,248 bytes)
8. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 03:04:22 +0400; They still have cookies, so it is still a braindead protocol. Hans; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00610.html (10,311 bytes)
9. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Ragnar Kjørstad <reiserfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:57:25 +0200; Also XFS supports ACLs, that may be a important feature for some windows-users. -- Ragnar Kjorstad Big Storage; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00611.html (10,134 bytes)
10. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:57:58 +1200; They still have cookies, so it is still a braindead protocol. NFS tries to solve some hard-problems. IMO, requiring the server be stateless sucks, the client IMO should be responsible for holding sta; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00613.html (10,496 bytes)
11. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:01:09 +0400; Making the server stateless is wrong, making the readdir a multioperation act is wrong, but making not letting the FS use filename as a cookie and making it use 64 bit byte offsets is the most wrong; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00621.html (10,842 bytes)
12. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xxx; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:00:29 +1200; Making the server stateless is wrong why? making the readdir a multioperation act is wrong why? i have 3M directories... ar you saying clients should read the whole things at once? but making not let; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00653.html (10,972 bytes)
13. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:13:05 +0200; Because it leads to all the problems we have seen! Why not have the client have an open file handle (the way Samba works and the way the Unix file system API works)? Then when the server goes down th; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00655.html (11,956 bytes)
14. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:40:31 +0400; there is a fundamental conflict between having cookies, shrinkable directories, and the ability to find foo.* without reading the whole directory, all at the same time. NFS V4 is designed by braindea; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00656.html (12,452 bytes)
15. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:00:10 +0400; If you have 10000 clients each opening 100 files you got 1e6 opened files on the server--it wouldn't work. NFS was designed to be stateless to be scalable. Just cannot stand it. You mean that NFS v4; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00657.html (13,441 bytes)
16. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:31:57 +0200; If you want performance from a file server that is almost bearable then you must have enough cache to handle all the open files. 10^6 files will not be workable anyway. If each file is accessed once; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00660.html (12,652 bytes)
17. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: 16 Jul 2001 11:28:55 -0700; Features also: ACLs. ;-) -- Florin Andrei; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00669.html (10,115 bytes)
18. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:34:18 +0200; Every existing file has at least one name (or is member of the hidden to-be-deleted-directory, and so has a name, too), and an object_id. Suppose the object_id is 32 bytes long. A virtual filedescrip; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00673.html (15,090 bytes)
19. RE: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:57:21 -0500; Wouldn't GFS be a good idea then? -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-796-9023 email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00678.html (12,846 bytes)
20. Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:57:37 +0400; For each open file you have: struct file (96b) struct inode (460b) struct dentry (112b) at least. This totals to 668M of kernel memory, that is, unpageable. All files are kept in several hash tables; /archives/xfs/2001-07/msg00679.html (16,586 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]