Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Smallest Source Mage

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
  • To: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Smallest Source Mage
  • Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:11:06 +0400 (MSD)

Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>:

> I'm looking for the other 'valid' point of view
here. I've asked
> several times about what makes tmpfs a reasonable option.
> I've heard two things. Fragmentation and ease of
removal.
> Fragmentation hasn't had any valid factors lent to it.
> As for ease of removal, I mentioned a couple of
different ways that
> it could be done as trivially as tmpfs in a previous
post. Not to
> mention that cleaning up can be done trivially as an
rm -rf in the
> background.
> I'm all for seeing both sides of the issue.
That's why I'm asking
> people to present benchmarks and other assorted data
to prove their
> points.
> Thus far, that hasn't happened. Usually that's
symptomatic of one
> side being right and the other one not. If my
willingness to call a

Phil, why don't you give us a break? There are other
reasons why nobody's rushing to provide you with data.
I for one suggested a strategy for you to use to
measure performance of either solution. Why don't you
sit down and try it?
Another thing is, why do you expect people to agree
with a person who publicly admitted to running an
untested file system (XFS) and trashing a file with it,
but maintains using it because he thinks it's fast?
Try and argue with yourself. You don't need a list for
that.
Sorry.

--Sergey.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page