Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:30:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:30:32 -0500 Received: from [216.151.155.121] ([216.151.155.121]:30225 "EHLO belphigor.mcnaught.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:30:25 -0500 To: Matthias Andree Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.x has finally made it! In-Reply-To: <20011113171836.A14967@emma1.emma.line.org> From: Doug McNaught Date: 13 Nov 2001 11:30:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: Matthias Andree's message of "Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:18:36 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) XEmacs/21.1 (20 Minutes to Nikko) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthias Andree writes: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Alastair Stevens wrote: > > > For those who haven't seen it yet, Moshe Bar at BYTE.com has revisited his > > Linux 2.4 vs FreeBSD benchmarks, using 2.4.12 in this case: > > > > http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1794/byt20011107s0001/1112_moshe.html > > Wow. That person is knowledgeable... NOT. Turning off fsync() for mail > is just as good as piping it to /dev/null. See RFC-1123. Umm... He specifically stated that it was a Very Bad Idea for production systems. He simply wanted to measure general throughput rather than disk latency (which is a bottleneck with fsync() enabled). It's a benchmark, lighten up! ;) -Doug -- Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees. --T. J. Jackson, 1863 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/