[News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs - Linux ; On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: >> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop > > You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk. Been running Ubuntu for over a year now. Never had ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 119

Thread: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

  1. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, LessSpeed, More Bugs

    On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:


    >> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop

    >
    > You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.


    Been running Ubuntu for over a year now. Never had a problem that
    resembled that. Not data corruption, not outright destruction.

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:44:36 -0800, HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:



    >"AZ Nomad" wrote
    >> Modern file systems don't need defragmentation.


    > Of course they do. What kindergarted school do you attend?

    Bull****.



    > Some systems defrag on the fly.

    Name one.

    FAT,NTFS,EXT,EXT3,UFS,XFS,ZFS,reserfs,JFS,JFFS,RMS for example don't.
    Only FAT and NTFS need defragmentation.

  3. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 08:51:55 -0600, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:

    > I've had Unix and Linux systems running for years with the file
    > system fragmentation never rising over 2 percent.


    What, precisely, does that mean? 2 percent of what? Total disk space?
    Total Files? extents? fragments compared to unfragmented files? That
    number seems to be quite meaningless unless you know what it refers to.

  4. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    > What, precisely, does that mean? 2 percent of what? Total disk space?
    > Total Files? extents? fragments compared to unfragmented files? That
    > number seems to be quite meaningless unless you know what it refers to.


    Actually, that is a good question. I am quoting the number spit back
    by the filesystem check at boot time. I've always assumed it was the
    percentage of blocks in fragmented files as compared to all allocated
    blocks... but I don't know for certain. I'll dig into it and follow
    up with an answer.

    Thad

  5. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    alt wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop

    >>
    >> You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.

    >
    > Been running Ubuntu for over a year now. Never had a problem that
    > resembled that. Not data corruption, not outright destruction.


    I'm running Ubuntu 7.10 on my harddrive and the performance stats
    show no sign of the rumored spindown bug. Perhaps it has been
    patched already? Or did it only occur in very specific configurations?
    Don't know... but I'm a very happy Linux user.

    Thad


  6. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2007-11-21, Peter Köhlmann claimed:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> William Poaster wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I
    >>>> replied to someone that modern linux filesystems don't need
    >>>> defragmenting.
    >>>
    >>> If they don't need defragmenting, why do defragmenters even exist for
    >>> Linux/OSS filesystems in the first place?

    >>
    >> Oh, you can certainly point us to those, right, DumbFull****?


    Maybe DooFu$ can explain why they are NOT included in modern linux distributions
    then? You know what I mean, like windoze includes a defrag application with all
    their OSs?

    Linux EXT and Reiser filesystems (& *BSD) won't compound, so defragging them
    doesn't really gain you much. The "defragging mindset" is largely due to the
    horrific way DOS handled file allocation, which made all the consumer-oriented
    Windows iterations such nightmares.

    > This is the only one I know about:
    >
    > http://freshmeat.net/projects/defrag/
    >
    > Notice the /added/ and /updated/ dates. Notice even further all of the
    > discussions below. Looks to me like it wouldn't even work with some
    > twiddling.


    Last updated 5 years ago, & would only work on ext2 anyway. In other words it's
    been abandoned as it's not required on modern ext3 & Reiser fs.

    > Maybe DuFS knows of some more.
    >
    >>> uh duh... my names Dumb Willie.... uh duh.

    >>
    >> No. It is DumbFull**** for a reason

    >
    > He's so dumb he thinks he has "Willie" someplace in his online moniker?


    Who cares.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  7. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Sinister Midget wrote:

    > On 2007-11-21, William Poaster claimed:
    >> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2007-11-21, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    >>>
    >>>> So what you meant then is that you find the level of fragmentation and
    >>>> typical performance of a fragmented linux filesystem to be acceptable. Or
    >>>> perhaps you're saying that you don't feel the need to defragment.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's a subjective argument. I'm sure many people don't "need" to ever
    >>>> defragment a Windows OS either.
    >>>
    >>> Unless they want it to run worth a crap. Or perhaps they're having
    >>> someone else do it. Or maybe it doesn't stand up to malware and bitrot
    >>> long enough for them to see deficinecies caused by fragmentation.
    >>>
    >>> I used a program to defrag (called 'defrag') on linux a long, long time
    >>> ago. I thought I needed it. Since I stopped using it I've seen zero
    >>> difference in performance between using it and not using it.

    >>
    >> There is a linux defragging application which is about 10 years old, & only
    >> used on ext2 fs. It's never been updated, as it is simply not needed.

    >
    > That's the one. I used it 3 or 4 times before I found out it wasn't
    > necessary. I stopped using it and waited to see the result. The result
    > was, I'd wasted my time using it.


    Yes, you would gain very little. The file system is organised & stored much more
    efficiently than on a windoze machine. *nix filesystems take disk geometry into
    account. This gives them a lot of flexibility in where they place files, &
    allows them to keep a drive performing very well *without* any need to run
    external optimisers (a defragger). Having said that, it's true for Linux & *BSD
    OSs, I don't know if OS-X takes drive geometry into account. I would not be
    surprised if it didn't.

    >>> I've seen the previous system (500MHz, 384M) report fragmentation of
    >>> more than 25% since then. Probably higher, but that's the ballpark
    >>> number I remember. I've had no slowdown that I could detect. If I
    >>> allowed the Windows machine (1.7GHz, 512M) at work to get to that level
    >>> it would take forever just to open the defrag program to fix it.

    >>
    >> Unlike windoze, there is NO defragment application for ext3 or Reiser
    >> journaled filesystems.
    >>
    >> Here's why linux doesn't need it:
    >>

    http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ind..._defragmenting.
    >
    > That won't stop Ewik trying to "teach" people that linux is just as
    > awful as Windwoes. Since when has correction ever stopped him from
    > repeating the same "errors"?


    Because he's stupid, is why.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  8. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:13:22 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >
    >>AZ Nomad wrote:

    >
    >>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:21:48 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:59:41 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Absolutely.
    >>>>> Oops! Careful now! We'll have the Quack troll saying, that we said linux
    >>>>> filesystems don't fragment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm not joking, that's *just* what he said in another group. I replied to
    >>>>> someone that modern linux filesystems don't need defragmenting. The idiot
    >>>>> Quack troll claimed that I said linux filesystems don't fragment! See how
    >>>>> dumb he is?
    >>>
    >>>>There are 2... well, maybe 3 possible reasons the statement "linux
    >>>>filesystems don't need defragmenting" could be true.
    >>>
    >>>>1) Linx filesystems don't fragment (we know that's not true, and you are
    >>>>admitting to as much here)
    >>> nobody is saying that.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>2) Linux filesystems do not suffer any performance degradation from
    >>>>fragmentation (that's a silly argument)
    >>> nobody is saying that either

    >
    >>Nope, but OTOH they do not suffer any *noticeable* effects.

    >
    >>>>3) Linux filesystems automatically defrag themselves (which is, in effect
    >>>>saying #1, thus also not true).
    >>> three strikes. You're out.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Which word in "doesn't need defragmentation" don't you understand?

    >
    >>The idiot's misinterpreted what you said, just the same way as Quack did with
    >>me. WTF is it with these windoze tards, don't they understand what they read?

    >
    > It's not that. It's a diversionary tactic away from the previous discussion
    > of vista being dog slow.


    Ah, another troll tactic of diversion.

    > This whole fragmentation discussion spawned from
    > a windows appologist theorizing that vista piss poor performance was due
    > to it doing a defrag in the background.


    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  9. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:34:18 -0600, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:


    >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >> What, precisely, does that mean? 2 percent of what? Total disk space?
    >> Total Files? extents? fragments compared to unfragmented files? That
    >> number seems to be quite meaningless unless you know what it refers to.


    >Actually, that is a good question. I am quoting the number spit back
    >by the filesystem check at boot time. I've always assumed it was the
    >percentage of blocks in fragmented files as compared to all allocated
    >blocks... but I don't know for certain. I'll dig into it and follow
    >up with an answer.


    For xfs, which is the filesystem I use and for which I reported 0.49%
    fragmentation, it is calculated from the ratio of actual extents to
    ideal extents.
    "actual 721950, ideal 718421, fragmentation factor 0.49%"

    If every single file had two extents, it would report a fragmentation factor
    of 100%. If half the files had four extents, it would also report a fragment
    factor of 100%.



  10. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    * DFS fired off this tart reply:

    > thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >> HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "AZ Nomad" wrote
    >>>> Better yet, run a file system that doesn't need defragmentation.
    >>>
    >>> There is no such thing.

    >>
    >> Remind me not to hire you into my IT department.

    >
    > I'll remind you never to hire Mr. ext3 or Mrs. XFS:
    >
    > http://www.webservertalk.com/archive...5-1037740.html


    There's a good reason why one of the posters in there recommends using
    maildir format instead of mbox.

    > http://oclug.on.ca/archives/oclug/20...st/022746.html


    This one does indicate a more important problem than fragmentation:

    The fix for interfile fragmentation lies inside ext2/ext3, not inside
    any generic layers of the kernel. And this really is a must-fix,
    because the completion time for writeback is approximately
    proportional to the size of the filesystem. So we're getting, what?
    Fifty percent slower per year?

    But that was five years ago, so I really doubt that posting is
    applicable.

    And, if you install Debian and specify manual creation of parameters, it
    will ask you about the usage of each filesystem, so it can tailor the
    filesystem or its tuning to that task.

    > http://lopsa.org/pipermail/tech/2006...er/000994.html


    This one goes nowhere (no replies), so it is obvious that what he says
    at the end is true:

    The question is if this is just a data reporting anomaly, or is there
    an inconsistancy between the on-disk and in-memory meta data for the
    file system, which could lead to corruption later?

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    * Sinister Midget fired off this tart reply:

    > --
    > Generally speaking, it's dangerous to generalize.


    Very applicable to discussions of UNIX filesystem fragmentation.

    --
    Tux rox!

  12. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    * Sinister Midget fired off this tart reply:

    >>> If they don't need defragmenting, why do defragmenters even exist for
    >>> Linux/OSS filesystems in the first place?

    >>
    >> Oh, you can certainly point us to those, right, DumbFull****?

    >
    > This is the only one I know about:
    >
    > http://freshmeat.net/projects/defrag/
    >
    > Notice the /added/ and /updated/ dates. Notice even further all of the
    > discussions below. Looks to me like it wouldn't even work with some
    > twiddling.


    Defragmenting on Linux (or Windows) is easy:

    1. Free up some disk space.

    2. Move files to one filesystem, then back again. (This would be
    much faster than any single-partition defrag, anyway.)

    Obviously, there are some issues with doing this on a running system.
    For instance, the defrag app requires that the filesystem not be
    mounted.

    --
    Tux rox!

  13. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    * alt fired off this tart reply:

    > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop

    >>
    >> You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.

    >
    > Been running Ubuntu for over a year now. Never had a problem that
    > resembled that. Not data corruption, not outright destruction.


    I run debian on all my laptops. Erik's full of it.

    --
    Tux rox!

  14. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:40:05 -0600, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:

    > alt wrote:
    >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop
    >>>
    >>> You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.

    >>
    >> Been running Ubuntu for over a year now. Never had a problem that
    >> resembled that. Not data corruption, not outright destruction.

    >
    > I'm running Ubuntu 7.10 on my harddrive and the performance stats
    > show no sign of the rumored spindown bug. Perhaps it has been
    > patched already? Or did it only occur in very specific configurations?
    > Don't know... but I'm a very happy Linux user.


    ARe you running a laptop in laptop mode? That's where the problem is.

  15. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:07:38 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:34:18 -0600, thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>> What, precisely, does that mean? 2 percent of what? Total disk space?
    >>> Total Files? extents? fragments compared to unfragmented files? That
    >>> number seems to be quite meaningless unless you know what it refers to.

    >
    >>Actually, that is a good question. I am quoting the number spit back
    >>by the filesystem check at boot time. I've always assumed it was the
    >>percentage of blocks in fragmented files as compared to all allocated
    >>blocks... but I don't know for certain. I'll dig into it and follow
    >>up with an answer.

    >
    > For xfs, which is the filesystem I use and for which I reported 0.49%
    > fragmentation, it is calculated from the ratio of actual extents to
    > ideal extents.
    > "actual 721950, ideal 718421, fragmentation factor 0.49%"
    >
    > If every single file had two extents, it would report a fragmentation factor
    > of 100%. If half the files had four extents, it would also report a fragment
    > factor of 100%.


    So there are 3529 fragments. It doesn't say if that's one file, or 3529 of
    them. That's significantly more fragemented than my Windows drive, which
    has only 104 fragmented files, with the largest having 329 fragments (most
    have only 2 or 3), yet Windows claims my drive is 10% fragmented (out of
    192,993 total files).

    So, what that means is that people that complain about the high level of
    fragmentation in Windows, and low level of fragmetation in Linux are using
    two wildly different measurements.

  16. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:14:18 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    >> I'll remind you never to hire Mr. ext3 or Mrs. XFS:
    >>
    >> http://www.webservertalk.com/archive...5-1037740.html

    >
    > There's a good reason why one of the posters in there recommends using
    > maildir format instead of mbox.


    For what it's worth, I agree that maildir is a far superior format, however
    it's a shame that so little mail software for Linux supports maildir
    without patches, particularly pop3 and imap daemons.

  17. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:22:17 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > Defragmenting on Linux (or Windows) is easy:
    >
    > 1. Free up some disk space.
    >
    > 2. Move files to one filesystem, then back again. (This would be
    > much faster than any single-partition defrag, anyway.)
    >
    > Obviously, there are some issues with doing this on a running system.
    > For instance, the defrag app requires that the filesystem not be
    > mounted.


    That's not a very good solution, for a variety of reasons. First, a defrag
    app can be selective of precisely which sectors a file is moved to,
    allowing for various algorithms to improve read performance. An example is
    to place files that are frequently read at the same time together, or in a
    specific order that improves head efficiency.

    Of course that's pretty useless on a file or web server, since multiple,
    concurrent access by multiple people makes this very difficult to predict.

  18. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:23:01 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > * alt fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:46:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> That being said, Ubuntu really likes the laptop
    >>>
    >>> You better hope it doesn't destroy the hard disk.

    >>
    >> Been running Ubuntu for over a year now. Never had a problem that
    >> resembled that. Not data corruption, not outright destruction.

    >
    > I run debian on all my laptops. Erik's full of it.


    I said ubuntu, not debian. Yes, ubuntu is based on debian, but it has it's
    own configurations.

    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ort/+bug/59695

  19. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:22:17 -0500
    :
    > * Sinister Midget fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>>> If they don't need defragmenting, why do defragmenters even exist for
    >>>> Linux/OSS filesystems in the first place?
    >>>
    >>> Oh, you can certainly point us to those, right, DumbFull****?

    >>
    >> This is the only one I know about:
    >>
    >> http://freshmeat.net/projects/defrag/
    >>
    >> Notice the /added/ and /updated/ dates. Notice even further all of the
    >> discussions below. Looks to me like it wouldn't even work with some
    >> twiddling.

    >
    > Defragmenting on Linux (or Windows) is easy:
    >
    > 1. Free up some disk space.
    >
    > 2. Move files to one filesystem, then back again. (This would be
    > much faster than any single-partition defrag, anyway.)
    >
    > Obviously, there are some issues with doing this on a running system.
    > For instance, the defrag app requires that the filesystem not be
    > mounted.
    >


    Pedant Points:

    [1] Windows has a mildly interesting API that allows
    defragmentation of a mounted volume. (I don't know
    the details.) Unknown what performance issues and/or
    reliability of the implementation of that API. (Knowing
    Windows, I have my doubts).

    [2] Moving all files does not necessarily lead to optimum
    performance; the move may or may not alphabetize the files
    within a directory, for example. (That's separate from
    the issue that alphabetized files may not be optimum for
    performance purposes anyway.)

    [3] Of course one needs another filesystem of the requisite
    size, if one contemplates a move. It is possible to work
    with just one filesystem if one has backup media (tape,
    CD, DVD), and a LiveDisc that can backup the system while
    it's frozen in time. The main issue with restore is ensuring
    LILO is run properly and/or that GRUB is still intact; since
    GRUB is normally put on a small filesystem of its own anyway,
    that doesn't appear to be a major issue.

    [4] There are head movement issues if both filesystems
    are on the same hardware, in a non-RAID configuration.
    Ideally, the second partition would be on an entirely
    different spindle.

    This may explain the project flatline and the fact that
    it's not been updated since 2002.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  20. Re: [News] [Rival] Windows Vista = XP with Less Applications, Less Speed, More Bugs

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >That's not a very good solution,


    Shut up, Fuddie.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast