Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Reiser4 Inclusion | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:05:56 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:02:15 PDT, Caleb Gray said: > Reiser4's responsiveness is undoubtedly at least twice as fast as ext3. > I have deployed two nearly identical servers in Florida (I live in > Washington state) but one difference: one uses ext3 and the other > reiser4. The ping time of the reiser4 server is (on average) 20ms faster > than the ext3 server.
OK, I'll bite. What *POSSIBLE* reason is there for the choice of filesystem to matter to an ICMP Echo Request/Reply? I'm suspecting something else, like the ext3 server needs to re-ARP before sending the Echo Reply, or some such.
> and directory structures. (Both of the filesystems have slowed down at a > similar pace for the duration of their lifetime [about 15ms].)
Unclear why *that* should matter to ICMP either.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |