From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Russell Coker Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LILO configuration for LVM "boot" filesystem Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:39:00 +0200 References: <20010605210727.C1870@pc.ilinx> <20010611120459.A26558@mail.wave.co.nz> <3B240ED6.F8951EE8@tls.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <3B240ED6.F8951EE8@tls.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01061113390005.14094@lyta> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com, Michael Tokarev On Monday 11 June 2001 02:20, Michael Tokarev wrote: > About tmpfs and a "real" filesystems. No, ufs isn't so slow on > solaris, it is comparable with ext2, and faster sometimes (and slow > other times), it is hard to say which is better (I prefer ufs on Last time I attempted to do a fair comparison I compared an Ultra=20 Enterprise 2 with two UltraSPARC CPUs of ~200MHz speed, 256M of RAM, and=20 a 9G SCSI hard drive with a Thinkpad 380XD with a 233MHz PentiumMMX, 96M=20 of RAM and a 3.2G Toshiba IDE drive. Ext2 on the Thinkpad beat UFS on the Sun in most tests. ReiserFS on the=20 Thinkpad beat tmpfs on the Sun for creating large numbers of files (tmpfs= =20 does not index directories). This is off-topic. Maybe we should migrate to the ReiserFS list where=20 comparing FS performance is a topical matter? --=20 http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page