[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Feature Request

Ethan Bonick wrote:

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:36, Ethan Bonick wrote:

For configuration that supports more things than the redhat-config-*

tools, have you tried webmin? IMO, the webmin developers do a much
better job at keeping up with things than linuxconf did.

I was talking about admin config tools not install time config

So was I.  Both redhat-config-* and webmin are administration tools used
on an installed system.

It's a very complicated issue. I am
fine with ext3 being the default journal. I just hadn't seen anything
on as to why they made it that way. If you do something that affects
people they usually want to know why and many will concede once
they've heard your position.

In answer to this specific question... here's the white paper on ext3
that I was looking for previously:

As Samuel has stated that ext3 is no longer faster,

I've never seen a benchmark were ext3 won. I'd love someone to show me one that's not just a single narrow test.

Examples of ext3 getting is ass kicked:

I dont know about
stability. But this paper was done in 2001 and as we all know a lot can
happen in two years. Isn't it a good idea to retest every so often? Though
that could change the default partition type every install.

Ext3 is an okay default as it's not that bad for read which is 90% of what most people do. It's all about choice, and using the right tool for the right job. Each filesystem type has it's own advantage I'm sure there is some guy getting great performance for what he's doing with ext3 in "journal mode" (ordered is the default modefor ext3).

The real question is will redhat accept patches to add xfs, and reiserfs support to the installer?

Once you have their hardware. Never give it back.
(The First Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory rackable com>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]