Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:42:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> To: shannon@widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) Cc: jandrese@mitre.org (Jason Andresen), acahalan@cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan), ccf@master.ndi.net, gordont@bluemtn.net, jkh@osd.bsdi.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: technical comparison Message-ID: <200105230342.f4N3gr6186416@saturn.cs.uml.edu> In-Reply-To: <20010522222328.A5012@widomaker.com> from "Shannon Hendrix" at May 22, 2001 10:23:30 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Shannon Hendrix writes: > On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote: >> Here's the results I got from postmark, which seems to be the closest >> match to the original problem in the entire ports tree. >> >> Test setup: >> Two machines with the same make and model hardware, one running >> FreeBSD 4.0, the other running RedHat Linux 7.0. That should be FreeBSD 4.3 and Red Hat 7.1 at least, or -current and 2.4.5-pre5. Considering that this is about a new system, the latest software and hardware ought to be used. Reiserfs only became stable just recently; the 2.4.1 kernel would be a dumb choice. >> 10000 transactions, 500 files. ... >> 10000 transactions, 60000 files Even 60000 files is insignificant by Reiserfs standards. The test gets interesting with several million files. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105230342.f4N3gr6186416>