similar to: compare zfs xfs and jfs o

Hi, In our company we have a DL380 ( 16gb ram) server with Windows server 2003 x86, this run only tomcat 6. We have 2 options: a) upgrade to windows 2008 x64 and b) migrate to Linux ( I mean centos 6 x64). I want to make some benchmarks. Please help me to compare a and b. How I can make this benchmark? -- Best Regards, Ashkan R

Hi, Now I have a windows 2008 server and a Tomcat 6.x on it. Our application has many many parts and it's very big. Actually we are not happy with tomcat performance, (We are working very hard on developing that software and improving performance) . We want to improve application performance (working on it now) and tomcat (by tuning and we are doing now) and finally OS, for this we want to

Hi, I need some benchmarks, ie samba vs windows 2008 file server benchmarks, IIS 7 vs Apache/httpd, and iptables vs pf. It's very good Linux side be Centos 6. -- Best Regards, Ashkan R

Hi, I'm trying to install ant on my centos 6.3, this is behind a http (only http and not ftp) proxy server. after execute yum install ant, I got some error which indicate mirror speed is extremely low, less than 1bps! and go to test another mirror and error cycle starts again. this is error:

Hi all, What is the current preferred method for backing up ZFS data pools, preferably using free ($0.00) software, and assuming that access to individual files (a la ufsbackup/ufsrestore) is required? TIA, -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer

Hey folks, I'm reading up on gtar for tape archiving and it sounds kind of nasty and not something I really want to rely on. It looks like star from the schily tools is preferred. I'm using Centos (and RHEL) 5.7 which seems to have star but not sdd. Which leads me to believe that the Schily tools are maybe a bit "rogue" My basic requirement with what I'm doing is to use

Copying a CD with k3b is no problem, except I want to include on my copy the cbbd data (from freedb.org). I've configured k3b's cddb section according to instructions at <http://www.freedb.org/en/faq.3.html#15> and read every article google could find about "k3b cddb freedb.org config", but still k3b can't manage it. Grip handles getting the cddb data just fine.

Why does ZFS report such small directory sizes? For example, take a maildir directory with ten entries: total 2385 drwx------ 8 17121 vmail 10 Jun 8 23:50 . drwx--x--x 14 root root 14 May 12 2006 .. drwx------ 5 17121 vmail 5 May 25 18:16 .Trash drwx------ 5 17121 staff 6 Jun 9 00:01 .testing -rw------- 1 17121 staff 0 Jun

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about > bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been > > added with Svr4: > > Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell? > >

Hi folks... trying to pick between jfs and xfs for a filesystem. In the past we've used jfs with CentOS + centosplus, however, an older post indicated that this may not be the best choice as the version of jfs included with the centosplus kernel would only be as new as the version that was included in the 2.6.18 kernel as RH doesn't backport fixes... It looks like xfs isn't part of

When I use copy/paste text into a window running vi, if there is a single line starting with '#', in the pasted content, it adds a # to all subsequent lines and indents each an additional level. Is there some way to eliminate this bizarre behavior, preferably globally and permanently so I don't have to repeat some change for every machine/user where I might log in? -- Les

Here''s some exciting news! Chris Emura, the Filesystem Development Manager within Apple''s CoreOS organization is interested in porting ZFS to OS X. For more information, please e-mail him directly at cemura at apple.com. Speaking for the zfs team (at Sun), this is great news and we fully support the effort. my powerbook hungers for ZFS, eric This message posted from

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote: > Philip Brown wrote: >> I''ve recently started down the road of production use for zfs, and am hitting my head on some paradigm shifts. I''d like to clarify whether my understanding is correct, and/or whether there are better ways of doing things. >> I have one question for

It wouldn''t be proper to start my first post here without congratulations and thanks to the ZFS team for such an impressive piece of work. Anyway, on to my query. I''ve been trying out ZFS, with a particular focus in reducing latency in a specific application. This application has a fair amount of random writing going on in the background (which, of course, ZFS will make

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it > became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement > include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution? In 1990, when I started using ksh88, it was totally commercial. Binaries were $$$ and source was

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6.

On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it > currently is in. I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with /bin/sh. I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh and enters the path to such a script, it would also run in ksh. That would only be true if you