Hi,
Firstly, I dont see any reason to get confrontational here.
Stanley Thomas wrote:
on ? I mean its been about 7 years into this decade why not upgrade
the platform
a bit..
does it really matter?? circumstances probably. i mean who cares. hee hee.
I am sure more people will care about how systems perform on modern day
hardware, using the the platform they are likely to deploy today - rather than
what was relevant in the dark ages. I think you yourself made a statement in
the
first email about using the right build optimisations for the hardware
So I would say yes, it does matter. And besides, every admin I know does not go
with general good feelings, they work with specifics on the ground.
Anyway, I shall have a xfs/ext3 test for people in a few days time - I
hope to
get sometime next weekend and will do some numbers. And Ext4 is just
around the
bend with even more tuneables :)
all the best. do remeber that benchmarks produce different results in
different situations. u suit the one thats more favorable for you. and
i do not remember mentioning anything abt ext4. it was abt xfs and
ext3 i believe.
Absolutely, different environments produce different results and usage
scenarios
will depend on specific role requirements - but your writing off ext3 across
the board was a bit juvenile. Its nice to see you accept that.
And w.r.t ext4 - well, I've been meaning to look at that for a while now, this
might just be a good chance to do so.
Nothing, though, is for free and there is a slight performance and
memory penalty associated with kernel modules. There is a little more
code that a loadable module must provide and this and the extra data
structures take a little more memory. There is also a level of
indirection introduced that makes accesses of kernel resources
slightly less efficient for modules.
from : http://tldp.org/LDP/tlk/modules/modules.html
I hope you realise that turning off the sound card in BIOS is not going to
drop
module support in the kernelif so, this does not related back directly to
your statement about disabling sound cards in the bios of a machine...
Besides, are you now saying that everyone should rebuild the kernel to remove
.ko support and just statically link in everything they need ? Isnt this a bit
arcane or even a bit over the top to expect - as you said your doc was for new
people - to be able to do ? or even need to do ?
not everything is numbers. some things happen because thats the way it
is. many unwanted modules or even a few of them depending on your
hardware will make you system a little less efficient. more resources
used by the kernel and modules gives the user a little less to play
around with. any code that is loaded with consume resources.
unless you can quantify this, I am going to write your statements off as noise.
You are talking about performance tuning a machine and make statements like
'not
everything is numbers...' - sounds a bit offbalance, dont you think ?
lvm already gives you span and mirror thats news to my ears hee hee.
yeah, you might want to go read up on one some of these things, they have,
after
all, been around for a few years now.
i could do swapping with the old mdraid just like i can do with the
new one. i dunno what you are hinting at. a suggestion, u shouldnt be
speaking about something if you are unsure.
I know what I am talking about. You, however, seem confused. My point was that
if you do need that capability, mdraid might be something you want to consider.
Otherwise lvm should cater directly to your needs. hotswapping a blockdevice
with lvm requires more command line flufftery than most people will care about.
yes dude. thats the way these tests were conducted.
*shrug* ok, just making sure didnt seem clear from what you said. I still cant
reproduce the results you posted though. Want to share a bit more info about
the
hardware behind that ?
Also, things that will make a major difference here are your CPU load
levels and the hba being used.
oh boy... u gotta be kiddin me. ofcouse yes.
ugh, no not at all - most of these things depend a lot on the these factors.
eg.
on a machine with a dmraid setup ( think: the nvraid, ich family, some of the
sil setups etc ) you will find its faster to do mdraid setup's than use the
underlying h/w fakeraid setup. And given that sort of a requirement you are
much
better off with an Opteron based solution than a Xeon one - given the same
budget, you are going to achieve 10 - 12% highter throughput by not changing
anything else - use the same drives, same network cards, chassis etc. ( well,
the same budget being the guide )
Perhaps this is beyond the scope of where the conversation started from, just
using specifics to give you an idea of whats involved and where. And, we've not
even gone into elevator-logic or data layout patterns as yet :)
mr.singh i seriously believe that u think that im writting stuff
