linux-kernel - Re: Reiser4 Inclusion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200607171805.k6HI5uvD017963@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:05:56 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Caleb Gray <caleb@...ebgray.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Reiser4 Inclusion

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.


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped