| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> You have software compiled in the kernel, not as a module the, right? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Correct. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> A reduce might be a different case altogether. BUT, it's not an |
| 7 |
> especially different operation to a defrag on Windows, and I have yet |
| 8 |
> to see a Windows admin debate whether he should defrag or not based on |
| 9 |
> the possibility of losing power halfway through... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I only ever defrag drives that are either on a laptop, or a server with |
| 12 |
a UPS. You can't be too careful on Windows... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> emerged openoffice lately? :-) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Nope, only openoffice-bin. Can't see a reason to have the fan of my |
| 17 |
laptop blow like hell for 12 hours in a row, when I can have it in a few |
| 18 |
seconds :-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The /var/tmp/portage argument is still a valid one, though. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Performance wise, it does well. The LVM and mdamd layers do their work |
| 23 |
> in a fraction of the time it takes to get the data on/off the disk |
| 24 |
> platters. In fact, Linux software usually outperforms most of those |
| 25 |
> stupid el-cheapo we-say-it's-hardware-raid-but-actually-isn't raid |
| 26 |
> controllers in low end hardware |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks a lot for your feedback. I think you and Neil triggered yet |
| 29 |
another server reorganization (but it seems like this will be the last one). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- Remy |
Archives