Originally posted by gilboa
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
EXT4 File-System Looks To Do Well Against NTFS
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostI wouldn't say they lose all meaning as many servers out there are running distro default kernels.
I never claimed that PTS should use custom kernels - quite the contrary.
I believe PTS should use the default distribution kernel and the default distribution <b>packages</b> (whenever available).
I am claiming that it is wrong to use the default non-optimized -configuration- (such as ext4 mount options) when it comes to server / specialized applications.
- GilboaoVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gilboa View PostI believe you missed my point:
I never claimed that PTS should use custom kernels - quite the contrary.
I believe PTS should use the default distribution kernel and the default distribution <b>packages</b> (whenever available).
I am claiming that it is wrong to use the default non-optimized -configuration- (such as ext4 mount options) when it comes to server / specialized applications.
- Gilboa
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostThat maybe true on not customizing the kernel for peak performance on servers but there are a lot more servers out there running the default kernels then customized ones so I wouldn't say that the tests are meaningless.
That said, I've found ext4 so unreliable that I would never trust on a server with data I care about; both of my PCs with ext4 partitions have had it fail so badly that they wouldn't even boot and required manual fsck... I've ended up configuring them with data journaling just to stop ext4 eating my files. Even btrfs, which is supposed to be 'experimental', is proving more reliable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostThat maybe true on not customizing the kernel for peak performance on servers but there are a lot more servers out there running the default kernels then customized ones so I wouldn't say that the tests are meaningless.
Again: If you deploy 100 web servers or 100 DB servers you will most likely use an enterprise distribution (such as RHEL) and the -default- distribution kernel with no optimization what-so-ever.
Why? Because you pay huge amounts of money on per-server licenses just to get support, and once you change one CONFIG_XXX within the kernel, you no longer support.
However, if you IT manager worth 10% of his paycheck, he'll optimize the hell out of the machine by changing the machine -configuration-.
E.g. application configuration (postgres.conf), kernel configuration (sysctl) and FS mount options.
- GilboaoVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.
Comment
Comment