On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 00:45, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Tuesday 11 May 2004 21:28, Craig wrote:
Spotted this via slashdot.org:
Interesting, but hardly conclusive and the test doesn't take into account how different filesystems scale differently on higher/lower performance hardware. This simply confirms what I had suspected for a long time, the choice of filesystem depends on your specific needs.
It will make me think about what filesystem i use next time i install Linux. I can't see it happening anytime soon thanks to Debian's easy upgrade, maybe a harddisk failure would do the job.
Also I was a bit dismayed at the choice of image file format for the graphs, is it my eyes or is the text on most of those damm near impossible to read. PNG or GIF would have surely been a better choice (and probably resulted in a smaller file too)
The guy had been slashdoted, id use the low quality/low bandwidth image format as well ;). I found it very hard to read as well though, i think scalable vector graphics would be the best choice for any graph images. It would surly only be a few lines of text for each graph and would keep its image quality at higher resolutions. I don't know if browsers support the format yet but Mozilla does.
Dennis