Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: LINUX FILESYSTEMS BENCHMARKS (includes REISER4 and EXT4).

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Jade, there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

    Those benchmarks are meaningful to you and Vighy for different reasons:
    You are interested in demonstrating Reiser4's superiority and supporting your allegation that it has been sabotaged. For that purpose, perhaps 2.6.20 is "more than adequate" in that it at least shows a decline.

    Vighy, on the other hand, is (like myself) simply curious to see how various filesystems compare in benchmarks, due to some enthusiasm or interest in Linux, filesystem performance, or all of the above. For that purpose, 2.6.20 and 2.6.13 are both ancient history.
    Last edited by StringCheesian; 06-19-2008 at 12:36 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    /dev/hell
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StringCheesian View Post
    Jade, there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

    Those benchmarks are meaningful to you and Vighy for different reasons:
    You are interested in demonstrating Reiser4's superiority and supporting your allegation that it has been sabotaged. For that purpose, perhaps 2.6.20 is "more than adequate" in that it at least shows a decline.

    Vighy, on the other hand, is (like myself) simply curious to see how various filesystems compare in benchmarks, due to some enthusiasm or interest in Linux, filesystem performance, or all of the above. For that purpose, 2.6.20 and 2.6.13 are both ancient history.
    You got it!! 2.6.20 is of more than 1 year ago (february 2007) and now is june 2008.... i think the difference is relevant (for me! :-))

    @jade : I must admit I read all the article and in many benchmarks reiser4 from morton sources (2.6.20) performed much better than reiser original patch (2.6.13)... so I don't agree when you speak about a performance loss due to "sabotage".

    and jade what about the different kind of workload? like multi-threaded apps: gzip and others are not multi-threaded...

    for me the thread is finished: until you will provide new benchmarks, there's nothing more to say.
    I will still prefer JFS upon an unmaintained file-system. (I mean reiser4, not reiserfs)

    And don't tell me that Reiser is in prison because his file-system was better... I would not stop laughing for a month!
    Last edited by Vighy; 06-19-2008 at 02:46 PM. Reason: missed reference/typo

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    'Stealing' ideas, isn't that what all distros do?
    If you don't want anything to be 'stolen' you make it proprietary.
    'Stealing' is what OSS is about, taking other people's work, and improving it

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StringCheesian View Post
    2.6.20 and 2.6.13 are both ancient history.
    Are you brain dead or something,... which part of "the Reiser4 code has essentially not changed for years" didn't you understand.

    The Reiser4 code for 2.6.20 is (essentially) the same as for 2.6.26.

    Do a recursive diff.

    If there are changes (like Reiser4 doesn't work any more) then they are most likely due to changes by kernel people coding outside of the Reiser4 code,... not due to changes in Reiser4 (coding outside Reiser4 could still include sabotage,... by changing the general environment in ways harmful to Reiser4's performance).

    Quote Originally Posted by Vighy View Post
    And don't tell me that Reiser is in prison because his file-system was better... I would not stop laughing for a month!
    Reiser is in prison because his file-system was better... End of story.
    Last edited by Jade; 06-19-2008 at 08:38 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    Are you brain dead or something,... which part of "the Reiser4 code has essentially not changed for years" didn't you understand.

    The Reiser4 code for 2.6.20 is (essentially) the same as for 2.6.26.

    Do a recursive diff.
    Everyone understood it, ext4 has changed so a proper benchmark would used 2.6.26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jade View Post
    If there are changes (like Reiser4 doesn't work any more) then they are most likely due to changes by kernel people coding outside of the Reiser4 code,... not due to changes in Reiser4 (coding outside Reiser4 could still include sabotage,... by changing the general environment in ways harmful to Reiser4's performance).


    Reiser is in prison because his file-system was better... End of story.
    #1, Reiser has to keep up with the kernel NOT the other way around

    #2 (for the red), THIS IS A FAKE LIE YOU MADE UP, STOP SPREADING IT
    It's like saying that 'at certain times, both shark attacks and ice cream sales go up' so does this mean ice cream is responsible for shark attacks?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StringCheesian View Post
    Jade, there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

    Those benchmarks are meaningful to you and Vighy for different reasons:
    You are interested in demonstrating Reiser4's superiority and supporting your allegation that it has been sabotaged. For that purpose, perhaps 2.6.20 is "more than adequate" in that it at least shows a decline.

    Vighy, on the other hand, is (like myself) simply curious to see how various filesystems compare in benchmarks, due to some enthusiasm or interest in Linux, filesystem performance, or all of the above. For that purpose, 2.6.20 and 2.6.13 are both ancient history.
    This is precisely the problem with this thread and these benchmarks; they exist for no other reason than to exercise Reiser4 fanboyism. It's really yet another in a vast array of "Reiser4 ought to be in mainline because it's fast and it Works For Me" arguments. The problem with this sort of argument is that it completely ignores the needs and concerns of the people who actually have to maintain mainline 5-10 years down the road.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by some-guy View Post
    #2 (for the red), THIS IS A FAKE LIE YOU MADE UP, STOP SPREADING IT
    How do you know whether this is a correct or not?

    How could you possibly know?

    Why are you so certain that Reiser is not in prison because his file-system was better,... when you cannot possibly know whether this is true or not,... unless, of course, you do KNOW that Reiser has been framed (in order to kill Reiser4) and are trying to stop people even considering that this is the case.

    Reiser's trial was a huge joke.

    With a little reading up, any intelligent person can see this.

    No matter how the liars spin it,... it is quite apparent that the trial (& verdict) was a total joke.

    Who was funding this amazing travesty of justice.

    Where was the money coming from.

    My guess is from various software and database interests. From the same people (and their puppets in the media) who were already trying to kill Reiser4.

    Who paid judge Trina Thompson Stanley to have Reiser held in solitary confinement without bail on the basis of the amazingly flimsy blood and missing seat "evidence."

    So, who pushed for solitary confinement, without bail, on the basis of "evidence," that attorney Daniel Horowitz describes as, trace, weak and inaccurate.

    Oct 12, 2006: "There's not a lot of forensic evidence at all. Whatever they got is trace," Daniel Horowitz said.

    Oct 12, 2006: Investigators are "leaking sensational information that may not even be accurate," Daniel Horowitz complained.

    Oct 23, 2006: The prosecution's case is weak. "Here's the statement of probable cause, and I've read it, and their case is much weaker than they've said it is," Horowitz said.

    So, who pushed for solitary confinement, without bail, on the basis of "evidence," that two months later will be called, "utterly unconvincing," by the judge Julie Conger.

    Dec 11, 2006: judge Julie Conger comments that she found Oakland PD's theory utterly unconvincing on account of its placements and timings of people not matching what had been established in court.

    But, disregarding her own publicly stated conclusion, she allows the trial to proceed anyway. I guess judge Julie Conger was bought as well.

    On Sept. 29, 2006, just three weeks after the supposed murder, the FBI provides a "little bit of manpower," with the forensic investigation.

    How much pull and money, does it take to get the FBI involved in a missing person case so early in the case and before much of anything is actually known?

    Sept. 18, 2006: Guerrero said officers trailed Hans Reiser, both by car and by a special surveillance aircraft,...

    Who paid for around the clock surveillance by so many agents and for the special surveillance equipment?

    Who got the police so interested in this missing person case just two weeks after Nina Reiser had gone missing, that they devoted a fistful of dollars to it and with (at that time) no evidence, at all, of foul-play?

    Sept. 18, 2006. Alameda County commissioner Nancy Lonsdale declined to grant Reiser's custody request following testimony from Oakland police officers who said they had evidence that would argue against giving Reiser the children.

    Police said they couldn't share the evidence, not even with the commissioner.

    The police LIED when they claimed they couldn't share the evidence, not even with the commissioner, because they didn't have any evidence,... they just LIED.

    We now know that the police LIED. Who paid them to LIE.

    Who has enough pull to get the police to LIE?
    Last edited by Jade; 06-20-2008 at 12:01 AM.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by some-guy View Post
    'Stealing' ideas, isn't that what all distros do?
    If you don't want anything to be 'stolen' you make it proprietary.
    'Stealing' is what OSS is about, taking other people's work, and improving it
    No no... We do not steal. We share, and build upon or base on the knowledge and experiences that have been accumulated, like any advances in human civilization.

    Those who use the term 'stealing' in OSS should be corrected, rather to continue using such misleading term.

    No, I am not a fan of RMS, but I do share some of his idea.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    /dev/random
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lenrek View Post
    No no... We do not steal. We share, and build upon or base on the knowledge and experiences that have been accumulated, like any advances in human civilization.

    Those who use the term 'stealing' in OSS should be corrected, rather to continue using such misleading term.

    No, I am not a fan of RMS, but I do share some of his idea.
    I was using Jade's definition of 'steal', that's why it's in ''

    @Jade, It's a confusing issue, but IT IS A RUMOR, I was incorrect at saying a lie, however I'm sure the members on this forum are also against spreading rumors

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by some-guy View Post
    I was using Jade's definition of 'steal', that's why it's in ''
    Oh I know, I know...

    I just trying to say, we should try to correct their mistake, than continue to follow their mistake.

    Sometimes, they can never be corrected. It is, sadly, their flaw. We are not their guardian angel, neither should we be feeling responsible in correcting them. It is their own ignorant and stubbornness that lead them into such pitiful situation.

    However, by posting the most accurate information (as far as we know, and, as much as we can), hopefully, other readers who maybe reading this, will not be confused or fooled by them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •