Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Desktop\s+Filesystem\s+Benchmarks\s+in\s+2\.6\.3\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Desktop\s+Filesystem\s+Benchmarks\s+in\s+2\.6\.3\s*$/: 58 ]

Total 58 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:23:23 +0300; Are you sure your benchmark is large enough to not fit into memory, particularly the first stages of it? It looks like not. reiser4 is much faster on tasks like untarring enough files to not fit into; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00008.html (13,338 bytes)
2. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Peter Nelson <pnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:34:15 -0500; Hans Reiser wrote: Are you sure your benchmark is large enough to not fit into memory, particularly the first stages of it? It looks like not. reiser4 is much faster on tasks like untarring enough fi; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00010.html (10,986 bytes)
3. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Dax Kelson <dax@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:33:13 -0700; My understanding (which could be completely wrong) is that reieserfs v3 and v4 are algorithmically more complex than ext2 or ext3. Reiserfs spends more CPU time to make the eventual ondisk operations; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00013.html (10,378 bytes)
4. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: David Weinehall <tao@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:47:58 +0100; Or rather, if you have more memory than you know what to do with, use ext3. If you have more CPU power than you know what to do with, use ReiserFS[34]. On slower machines, I generally prefer a little; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00016.html (12,562 bytes)
5. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Andrew Ho <andrewho@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:30:32 -0500; XFS is the best filesystem. David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:33:13PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 09:34, Peter Nelson wrote: Hans Reiser wrote: I'm confused as to w; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00017.html (12,369 bytes)
6. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: David Weinehall <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 02:41:15 +0100; Well it'd better be, it's 10 times the size of ext3, 5 times the size of ReiserFS and 3.5 times the size of JFS. And people say size doesn't matter. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall <ta; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00018.html (11,731 bytes)
7. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: 03 Mar 2004 03:39:26 +0100; I think your ext3 numbers are off, most likely you didn't include JBD. A lot of this is actually optional features the other FS don't have, like support for separate realtime volumes and compat code; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00019.html (11,339 bytes)
8. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Feizhou <feizhou@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:48:39 +0800; Andrew Ho wrote: XFS is the best filesystem. Sorry, but saying/writing that does not make it so. Different filesystems have their strengths and weaknesses and those are also different under different; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00020.html (10,384 bytes)
9. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:00:56 +0100; Recoverability matters to me. The driver could be 10 megabyte and *I* would not care. XFS seems to stand no matter how rudely the OS is knocked down. After a few hundred crashes (laptop, kids, draine; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00021.html (11,588 bytes)
10. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:30:54 +0300; Unfortunately it is a bit more complex, and the truth is less complementary to us than what you write. Reiser4's CPU usage has come down a lot, but it still consumes more CPU than V3. It should consu; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00022.html (12,408 bytes)
11. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 07:47:56 +0000; And a whole lot of code to stay somewhat in sync with other codebases..; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00023.html (12,576 bytes)
12. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:03:37 +0300; Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 03:39:26AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: A lot of this is actually optional features the other FS don't have, like support for separate realtime volumes an; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00024.html (12,904 bytes)
13. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:16:18 +0100; can we quote you on that 3 years from now ? ;-) Attachment: signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00025.html (12,344 bytes)
14. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:35:12 +0300; Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 09:03, Hans Reiser wrote: I think V4 will be our last rewrite from scratch because of our plugins, and because of how easy we find the code to work on no; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00026.html (12,984 bytes)
15. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:43:53 +0100; But XFS easily breaks down due to media defects. Once ago I used XFS, but I lost all data on one of my volumes due to a bad block on my hard disk. XFS was unable to recover from the error, and the XF; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00027.html (11,907 bytes)
16. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:59:26 +0100; What file systems work on defect media? As for crashed disks I rarely bothered trying to "fix" them anymore. I save what I can and restore what's backed up and recovery tools (other than the undo-del; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00028.html (11,804 bytes)
17. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author: Olaf Frączyk <olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:13:18 +0100; You lost all data? Or you just had to restore them from backup? If you didn't have a backup it is your fault not XFS one :) But even if you had no backup, why didn't you move your data (using dd or s; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00029.html (12,410 bytes)
18. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:19:01 +0100; It's not a matter of working: it's a matter of recovering. A bad disk block could potentially destroy a file or a directory, but shouldn't make a filesystem not mountable nor recoverable. The problem; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00030.html (12,539 bytes)
19. RE: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:24:10 +1100; A single bad-block rendered the entire filesystem non-recoverable for XFS? Sounds difficult to believe since there is redundancy such as multiple copies of the superblock etc. I can believe you lost; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00031.html (11,431 bytes)
20. Re: Desktop Filesystem Benchmarks in 2.6.3 (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:07:16 +0100; Well, it was a testing machine with no important data, so I could just afford to lose everything, as it was the case. I tried, but it proved more difficult than expected, since the computer was a lap; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00032.html (12,397 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]