Linux-Advocacy Digest #208, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense (Steve Mading)
Re: RedHat BugList Summary (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky (Steve Mading)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Tore Lund)
IMAP mail client (was Linux laptop) (Greg Reynolds)
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... (Greg Reynolds)
Re: Side by side ("Patrick Raymond Hancox")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: The Sixth Sense ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linvocates, true to form as usual (was dead laptop) (Shadowrunner Kai)
Re: Linux in Critical Systems? ("Jerry Segers, Jr.")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OS stability (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Shadowrunner Kai)
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: 13 Nov 2000 09:46:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:JgFP5.84353$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:26:24 GMT,
:> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>
:> >I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
:> >as warped as usual.
:>
:> People who indoctrinate themselves into Microsoft's way
:> of thinking do indeed develop some very odd notions. You will
:> note these yourself as you observe the logic displayed by
:> some MS users.
:>
:> Some common trends:
: Spare us your spin.
:> 1. A database is a file.
: No one ever said this, at least not in this group. It was
: the intention of several penguinistas to imply that I meant
: this in a recent thread, I was merely illustrating that
: a database must be persisted to the disk somehow. How is this
: done? Through a file. Perhaps multiple files, each one impacting
: performance.
You have implied many, many times that a database is
something you should stick a file rather than raw onto a
partition. It is your constant ignorance as to the reasons
for the put-your-database-on-a-partition technique that makes
it look like you don't know the difference between a database
and a file. (Hint: the reason to do it is speed (and before
you spit out your knee-jerk reaction about the speed of NTFS,
note that it is *also* faster to use a partition on NT much
like on the Unixen.) )
A database going through a filesystem layer results in unnecessary
indirection, and therefore unnecessary code being executed. The
database doesn't need buffered file access, nor does it need
anticipitory read-ahead, nor does it need the OS to resolve
multiple concurrent access to the file (the database wants to
handle that it's own way). The ONLY advantage you get from
putting the database storage out on a file is that it is simpler to
grow it later that way, or move it. That's it. But you take a
performance penalty for that convienience, so it should only be
done for prototyping or environments were transacion speed doesn't
need to be maxed out to the limit. This is true for both Unix and NT.
: Ideally, one would only have to have one file (or the data on
: one drive and the index or log on another) rather than many log
: files (or one for every 2GB in Linux's case).
You just mentioned partitions here, yet keep mentioning the 2GB
limit. You do realize that the 2GB limit doesn't apply to
partitions, don't you?
[snip]
:> 3. An OS is something that runs on an x86.
: Again, removing all context. We were talking about Linux's
: many shortcomings, including it's inability to address >2GB
: files on a 32-bit platform. This is a design flaw and lack
: of professionalism by Linux "designers". NT and several other
: OSen have been able to do this since their inception.
Which is more unprofessional? Requiring a machine with more than
32 bit addressing to support a file >2GB, or having an OS that
can do a >2GB file on a 32-bit machine, but that's only because
it doesn't even run at all on anything better than a 32-bit machine,
since support for other archetectures was deemed unimportant and
dropped?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RedHat BugList Summary
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:50:41 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As far as I can tell, Debian has zero security bugs for 2.2.
> Security Alerts from 2000
Yes, and they're all fixed, it seems.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:04:21 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MS has proven themselves time and time again. Very few issues are
> reopened. The quality just isn't there with Linux, despite your wide-eyed
> claims of OSS superiority.
The point is that we only know about security issues from Microsoft as
and when they feel like telling - i.e. after a fix is available. You
have third party sources, but the other point (which you label "yadda
yadda") is that it is very hard for third parties to identify bugs
without access to source.
> Not really. In fact, just the contrary, it was you guys who were comparing
> ALL of MS products to Linux.
Uh? "Linux" is just the kernel, I'm not aware of any current security
issues with it. I'm not aware of ever claiming it's fair to compare
an OS kernel with a full system - even if MS thinks a web browser is
an "integral part" of an OS.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Focus in Linux seems a bit cooky
Date: 13 Nov 2000 10:07:39 GMT
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: What is up with this!?! I feel like an idiot...!
: Is this the way things are suppose to work? Is this a window manager problem?
: FYI, I'm using KDE at work and Helix Gnome at home.
It's not a window manager "problem", so much as a window manager setting
that you are unfamiliar with. One of the things that the modern graphical
environments in Linux picked up from X-windows is the notion that the
"pointer focus" style should be a user-setttable option. When you
combine this with whether or not to raise a window to the front, you
get a wide variety of possible settings:
You should find these settings in the control panels for the window
managers you are using:
Focus styles:
=============
focus-follows-mouse: Whichever window the mouse pointer is inside is
the one that has the keyboard focus. The mouse must stay in the
window to keep the focus there. From the sound of it, this is how
you have yours set.
sloppy-focus: Like focus-follows mouse, but if the mouse pointer is
moved onto the background, then whichever window was the last one
that had the mouse pointer in it still keeps the focus until the
mouse is moved into another window.
click-to-focus: Must click on a window to give it the keyboard
focus. This is the way Windows does it.
Raise styles:
=============
auto-raise: yes/no: If yes, then when a window gets the focus it also
is pulled to the front. (Note, this can be annoying when combined
with focus-follows mouse, as it means windows will pop up to the front
when you move through them with the mouse.)
click-raise: yes/no: If yes, then when a window is clicked-on it
comes to the front.
If auto-raise and click-raise are BOTH off, then that means you
must click the window's *border frame* to make it come to the front,
rather than clicking on its interior.
auto-raise delay: A delay can be put on the auto-raise feature
so that the mouse must hover over a window for a moment before it
will come to the front. This prevents windows from popping to
the front when you just traverse the mouse over them on the way
to something else on the screen.
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:18:46 +0100
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >You buy a larger hard disk an want to copy your existing setup
> > >over to it. How do you do it? With Linux you would connect
> > >it up, 'cp -a' all your partitions to their new destinations, swap
> drives,
> > >boot with a floppy and run lilo to be back in business. Cloning
> > >an existing setup to a new machine is equally trivial.
> >
> > Assuming you know how to do all of that under Linux. I don't.
>
> I suspect you do just so you could point out any flaw you might find.
> Let's see: you spell 'cp -a' c, p, space, dash, a, then it takes a
> source directory and a destination directory. Too hard yet?
>
> > Under
> > Windows best thing would be install new disk with the software that
> > comes with it (partitioning program) and re-install from the image CD
> > included with the machine.
>
> Then it could take weeks to install all your software on top of that.
This is completely trivial to do under Windows 95/98 (not sure about
Win2K). You have your old disk in C: and a new, formatted disk in D:.
Make sure all files are visible in Windows Explorer, then copy and paste
everything EXCEPT c:\windows\win386.swp to the new disk. That's it.
You can now swap disks, move jumpers and boot again.
(Note: This is a VERY brief description for people who understand what
they are doing. But it really is that simple...)
--
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Greg Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IMAP mail client (was Linux laptop)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:31:49 +0000
Hi,
The client I am trying to get working is KImap, which I thought was a
simple hack of Kmail. However When I tried the RPM (thanks for the pointer
Les), there were loads of weird dependency problems, including an so from
libjpeg (which I definitely have installed). Some of the other stuff i
haven't installed, so I expect that. Also the RPM doesn't have SSL built
in. So I thought I'd go from the source. It wouldn't configure, as KDE
header files were missing (even though I installed the devel packages). So
I want the source RPMS, but they won't install either. I'm using the new
user friendly KDE2 by the way (which took two days and a howto from a
newsgroup to get working!).
This may seem off topic, but basically the point is it gets so long to get
most things to work on Linux that people who have real jobs (not lazy PhD
students like me) haven't got the time to do it. I've already wasted a
couple of hours on KImap, and I know where to look for help and know all
the commands :-). If anyone here is inclined to help I'd be very grateful
(I already tried comp.os.windows.kde btw).
Cheers,
Greg.
------------------------------
From: Greg Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:33:29 +0000
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> >
> >I hope you aren't using this argument for windows advocacy. If that is
> >what you want in a computer, but an IMac. End of Story.
>
> Damn typos. That should be "buy an IMac".
>
I'm not particularly a Windows advocate. But I don't think people who like
it are idiots though. And Imacs don't run all the programs that people
want. :-(.
Cheers,
greg.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Side by side
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:12:06 -0800
A sign that this thread is just plain nuts. AOL has be offered as a model of
highly uptimes. Come on people
AOL, anything AOL,good grief. let it go already
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8umgpt$1jr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> let's do some industry by industry comparisons:
>
snip--
> And if you want to say it's because of scheduled maintenance, please
> explain how barns and noble is scheduled maintenance!
> Microsoft network vs. AOL
>
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:44:55 +0000
A certain Erik Funkenbusch, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>Huh? The kind of client is irrelevant. The Win2k TS client works on NT4,
>9x, 2k, and CE devices. You can use the Citrix client for non-Windows
>clients. Yes, that's an extra expense, but then that wasn't what you
>originally said.
The Citrix client is actually freely downloadable. I use the Linux one
quite often. It works seamlessly.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:45:08 +0000
A certain Les Mikesell, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> Huh? The kind of client is irrelevant. The Win2k TS client works on NT4,
>> 9x, 2k, and CE devices. You can use the Citrix client for non-Windows
>> clients. Yes, that's an extra expense, but then that wasn't what you
>> originally said.
>
>Does the citrix client work against the stock Win2k-server TS server?
YES!!!!!!
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:08:50 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IE now run on three OS that I know of. Win*, Mac, Solaris.
Now that is funny. Have you ever tried running IE on Solaris?
It was so slow and bloated that it was unusable. Also, if I
remember correctly it only ran on a specific version of Solaris
(2.6 I think). Now how many applications do you know that only
work on specific versions of Solaris? Seems like Microsoft
can't write portable code for a specific OS. That must be why
you often need to upgrade your applications when you install
a new version of Windows. :-)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:25:00 GMT
Julian S Visch wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |> I've been finding a fair amount of weird behavior in Word 2000.
> |> Not enough to hurt its usefulness, but sometimes annoying.
> |>
> |> Word 2000 converts to HTML in an interesting way. It adds
> |> some fake xml to encode the Style setting. And at least the
> |> nesting is correct now. It is still hard-to-read, and has a lot
> |> of extra tags in it, but at least this extra crap lets you
> |> convert it back to a Word doc without losing any styling.
>
> Try adding a bit of maths to your word document and then converting,
> very little gets converted.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Word doesn't support Postscript.
But, at least I can edit a Word document using vi without
losing the basic information needed by the average office
document.
Chris
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shadowrunner Kai)
Subject: Re: Linvocates, true to form as usual (was dead laptop)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:04:40 GMT
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:15:30 +1300, "Javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You can wipe information by not shutting down windows properly too. I would
>like to know why on gods green earth didn't you show him some ropes? show
>him the do's and don't s of linux? is it because you are a complete and
>utter moron or did you assume that because he can click on the start icon in
>the task bar, which, in the wintel world makes to a technician/Microsoft
>Certified Engineer, you assumed he could handle actually learning a new
>system.
Only one point to be made here: as an MCSE, I can do MUCH more than
"click on the start icon". I will admit, I've met a few that couldn't
click an icon on their desktop even with the task bar hidden, but in
my experience, the one's who've had their MCSE awhile (and I'm talking
at least a few years), can perform just as many miracles as some of
you Linux guys who've been around for as long.
Just my 2 cents worth.
>
[the rest snipped for TruBandwidth Savings(tm)]
=============================================
Michael Anthony Molloy,
MCSE+Internet, CNE 4.11 & 5.0, CCNA, CCDA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Jerry Segers, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in Critical Systems?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:56:36 +0500
In article <8ummea$aqg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "S. W. Davison"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> US NASA ground control systems
<snip>
from somewhere on the hubble web site (don't remember where)
they use amigas running amigaOS or whatever
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: 13 Nov 2000 13:25:45 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:48:58 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <g7IP5.19730$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Then there's the Windows way of doing it - the DNS is assigned to the
>Dialup entry setting, and not to the system.
Actually, Linux dialup tools like Kppp allow you to assign
DNS configuration on a per-entry basis, and edit resolv.conf on the
fly.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 13 Nov 2000 13:31:14 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:25:14 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <oSKP5.7875$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You'd look like less of an obnoxious jerk if you'd lay off the all-caps
stuff. I mean, learn to make your point without sounding obnoxious.
You seem so obsessed with making your point that it completely escapes you
that you are making an ass of yourself.
HAND,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shadowrunner Kai)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:55:50 GMT
On 12 Nov 2000 09:15:55 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[snipped for TruBandwidthSavings(tm)]
>Sendmail keeps all user's inbox information in a separate file, owned
>by each individual user. Qmail (another popular SMTP server for UNIX)
>stores these files in a user's home drive as well. Any user can copy
>their inbox with simple filesystem utilities
>(/var/spool/mail/username).
>
>The point is, putting all your eggs in one basket is stupid -- One
>little glitch takes out mail/calendar/etc./etc. for everyone instead
>of just one person.
In my view, I'm not sure if you understand totally what Exchange does.
The common misconception is that it is only an email server. While
this is a function of Exchange, yes; if this was the only thing that
Exchange was being used for, then it is a waste of money. Exchange
handles scheduling, contact management, as well as email.
As such, Exchange manages all of this data in much the same was that
Oracle manages a database. I know, "but Oracle can split the database
into different files". Exchange up to 5.5 could not do that.
Exchange 2000, however, can.
sendmail is more like the Internet Messaging Service (IMS) for
Exchange, which handles delivery of email messages outside of the
Exchange platform (read: Internet-based email). IMS does handle
outgoing email requests in a similar fashion as sendmail, as each
outgoing message is kept in it's own file until the transmission is
complete. The same is true for incoming mail: the message is kept in
it's own file until it is converted into Exchange format and is then
passed to the Message Transfer Agent, which then determines the path
of the message (most likely to the Private Information Store).
Comparing Exchange and sendmail is like comparing DEL for DOS with rm
for Unix: of course rm can do more (and more effectively), but DEL
does was it was programmed to. :)
A better comparison would have been sendmail with IMS or SMTP server
for IIS.
>
[BS comments snipped]
=============================================
Michael Anthony Molloy,
MCSE+Internet, CNE 4.11 & 5.0, CCNA, CCDA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:46:12 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > MS has proven themselves time and time again. Very few issues are
> > reopened. The quality just isn't there with Linux, despite your wide-eyed
> > claims of OSS superiority.
>
> The point is that we only know about security issues from Microsoft as
> and when they feel like telling - i.e. after a fix is available. You
> have third party sources, but the other point (which you label "yadda
> yadda") is that it is very hard for third parties to identify bugs
> without access to source.
This is a false presumption. People are finding bugs at a rate almost
as frequent as Linux, although it's waning now in the past few months.
> > Not really. In fact, just the contrary, it was you guys who were comparing
> > ALL of MS products to Linux.
>
> Uh? "Linux" is just the kernel, I'm not aware of any current security
> issues with it. I'm not aware of ever claiming it's fair to compare
> an OS kernel with a full system - even if MS thinks a web browser is
> an "integral part" of an OS.
Ah yes, the old "Linux is just a kernel" copout. I'm sick of you guys
changing the goal line when it suits your purposes.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:48:29 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8unv68$ar4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Chad Myers wrote:
> :>
> :> "Andrew Suprun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> :> news:8MmO5.20966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ayende Rahien) wrote in
> :> > <8ubtp8$9cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> :> >
> :> > >> Microsoft: "MSDE doesn't limit the number of users who can connect to
> :> > >> its database, but it is optimized for five users. For a larger numbers
> :> > >> of users, you should use SQL Server 7.0."
> :> > >
> :> > >Not so.
> :> > >It's installed optimized for 5 users, there is nothing to prevent you
> :> > >from re-optimzing it to much larger numbers of users.
> :> >
> :> > MS Access is open sourced already?
> :>
> :> Contrary to popular Linux belief, not everyone is a C programmer.
> :>
>
> : And the point of you're repeating this old bromide is??????
>
>
> : clue for the fucking clueless
>
> : it doesn't matter if *you* personally know C or not...
> : as long as a large group of people who *do* can review it,
> : and you are able to hear/read their evaluation.
>
> Chad's view is like saying that you don't care whether or not
> your car's technical manuals are available to the public. After
> all, *you* don't know what to do with those manuals, so obviously
> it doesn't matter if they are out there. This naive viewpoint
> ignores the fact that it's kinda nice that your *mechanic* can
> get access to those manuals.
Mechanics have access to much more technical and accurate documentation.
The manual becomes irrelevant.
Developers get along just find without having the source to Access. People
have become very productive with Microsoft tools without requiring
the source. People can optimize, configure, and tweak the applications
to their specifications without the source because the software is
well designed in the first place, making having the source available
irrelevant.
If you're going to quote me, please don't put words in my keyboard.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:51:29 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:VwGP5.19706$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > The first one about each
> > > > file taking space that is never released in the master file table is
> > > > the problem I meant, and I think it may have eventually killed a
> > > > machine I was trying to run.
> > >
> > > That isn't the problem.
> > > The problem is a MFT with millions of file listed in it.
> >
> > I think it was. At the time I had the problem I found other
> > people had similar experiences and were blaming it on
> > the fact that the MFT never shrinks.
>
> It grow to a certain size, controllable by the user.
>
> > > > It was running NT 4.0, probably sp3,
> > > > and set up by someone who was gone before I took over the job.
> > >
> > > I doubt this is the reason.
> > > You need something in the order of tens of millions files before the
> > problem
> > > begin.
> > > You've a *lot* of files in your system if you've 500,000
> > > Practically the only scenario where this can happen is on an large NNTP
> > > server.
> >
> > The purpose of the machine was to make news stories from a wire
> > service available through a web server. It collected a few hundred
> > articles a day, and the disk was nowhere near full. Should this be
> > a problem for a filesystem that someone was claiming should
> > handle an enterprise?
>
>
> It has nothing to do with how full the HD is, it has to do with the number
> of files it has.
> And I don't think that 1000 articles per day would have any affect at the
> matter.
> That would take three years to reach one million files, and the problem only
> *begin* to appear when you've tens of millions of files.
> And, of course, you weren't collecting a 1000 per day.
> So this problem has nothing to do with the reason your system failed.
>
> Regardless of the above, NT4+Sp4 and above can handle NTFS5, since win2k
> doesn't suffer from this problem, and it's a FS relate, I would assume that
> you might be able to upgrade to SP4 and solve the problem. However, I am
> *guessing* here, I don't know, as I never had this problem.
>
> > > And it doesn't kill the system, it slows it down.
> >
> > Well if you want to be technical about it *I* killed it after it
> > had crashed (perhaps an unrelated reason) and had not
> > completed its chkdisk (or scandisk or what ever that blue-screen
> > thing a startup is) after running over a three day weekend.
>
> That has nothing to do with the problem we are talking about.
> The only thing that slows down is the creation of new files, since this
> isn't what we are talking about, you'd other problems.
>
> > > IIRC, there are ways to handle MFT, so maybe there is a way to
> workaround
> > > this problem.
> >
> > I've never seen anything recommended other than a reformat.
> >
> > > Never happened to me, so I can't tell you any more about it
> >
> > It is easy enough to test if you aren't afraid of the result.
>
> I don't have a NT4 around that I could experiment with, and this problem
> doesn't affect 2000.
Just for a little clarification, I believe the problems you guys
are talking about was a bug in NTFS4 (not NTFS5) where if you had over
5 MILLION (not hundred thousand) files you would start running into
problems.
IIRC, the problem was fixed in SP5 on NTFS4 partitions, or if you had
an NTFS5 partition, the problem wasn't there in the first place.
Note that you need Win2K to create the NTFS5 partition and that
NT4 cannot make NTFS5 partitions.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:52:59 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The claim that Linux is already "enterprise ready" is at stake.
>
> Well, Linux is being used by plenty of enterprises, so it's beyond
> "enterprise ready".
It is? How so? Please provide examples.
> > You can't have an enterprise-ready application with a faulty and
> > half-baked file system (ext2).
>
> I'm not sure why you think ext2 is half-baked and faulty?
Because it is. There's no redundancy, no jounraling, no protection,
it's slow, it's poorly designed, it's.... Obviously there are problems
because there are several other FS' in the works and Linus himself is
working on ext3.
> I've been using it since way back when xiafs was the main competitor,
> and it's always been a good performer with no more bugs than any other.
Compared with what?
-Chad
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
