What benchmark made you conclude that HFS+ is faster than NTFS when using big block sizes ?

None, NTFS is a crap filesystem. I was just pointing out the comparison there is wasteful vs sluggish.

Does anybody still use reiserfs and what makes it "enterprise grade" ?

It's the fastest filesystem I've tested vs ext(s), xfs, and a few others. I had to do a lot of throughput testing on different filesystems so I wrote a battery of tests that helped me figure it out years ago.

Windozes server 2012 uses some of the principles from reiserfs, I don't know if that counts and I can't speak to who users reiserfs commercially but I use it whenever I need something fast and reliable.

The guy may be a killer but he knows how to write a filesystem and I doubt the US military has given up on their investment in it.

Mac OS X still depends on old mac system 6/7 filesystem functionality like resource forks, these are not that easy to "retrofit" in ufs/zfs.

Interesting - I didn't know that - but still sucks for mac users.

A lot of the IO schedulers are implemented mainly to have some IO fairness because mechanical hard drives are very easy to saturate.

and also to make it look like all the processes running behave smoothly - if you have a dedicated application though your still s.o.o.l on a mac

These aren't that useful anymore when you can push 500.000 IOPS to a set of SSD's. And don't diss the FreeBSD storage subsystem: ufs allows for consistent backups without having to use volume management and creating a snapshot beforehand (LVM2+ext4).

Now way would I dis FreeBSD - I'm might be a linux guy but I still think BSD is a solid offering - and good on them for having apple use their work - they deserve more credit. Though ext4 suffers its own issues if you need to have big directory structures.

I'll stick with my guns here though, any limitations on linux disk performance is a function of how well the controller drivers implement the hardware functionality. Configurable I/O, CPU scheduling, software and hardware raid coupled with filesystem choice make Linux reign supreme in terms of achievable I/O performance.

Nah, I neglected to consider the on board controller quality of laptops - Apple have usually been pretty good in that regard - filesystems though - blech. It might be interesting to do a comparison with linux on a T series lenovo - which is a similar build quality an a mac but in reality mine was an observation about filesystem performance over hardware.

Even more interesting would be a comparison of similar macs with one hosting linux, but even that would just be limited by how well linux supports the apple controller under linux.

I have done extensive testing of filesystem throughput though, however those have been on higher end kit than laptops.

Well, I'm a linux guy too, but to be fair to the windows folk HFS+ only achieves that performance by using a 16kb block size, not by having a performance filesystem and thus was very wasteful with disk space - especially when you consider how many small files exist on an fs.

No the disk performance crown still resides with Linux users that have access to enterprise grade filesystems like murderFS, ahem I mean reiserfs, xfs and other performance kings of that ilk.

I'm sure that there are macOS users out there who know how to retrofit such a filesystem into their BSD kernels, but that is hardly a stock MAC, it's BSD functionality. Even then I'm not sure if BSD supports configurable IO and CPU schedulers or a pre-emptable kernel - not that 99% of mac users would even understand why that is important.

Ok, so what has been done by these organizations to protect the contamination of the ecosystem's genome from GMOs. I'm kind of on the fence about GMOs however it seems to me there is as much ground to be cautious about deploying them when they can introduce species extinction by interfering with the germination of seeds.

It seems to me that whilst there are great benefits there are also great risks, especially when there is an abundance of food and the real issue is attempting to manipulate commodity prices through the practice of grain dumping at sea.

If we need more food, wouldn't it be more logical to end grain dumping and improve food distribution than to grow more food that will just be dumped at sea anyway? Maybe we should be trying to understand the genome better before we go modifying it in the ecosystem.

That's a metric fuckton of metric...

Why not just post a story instead of being OT? I mean a new Tails version is actually 'news for nerds' so why post it in a story about an impact crater? Are you saying that this release is so good that it caused an impact crater hundreds of millions of years ago.

Please there is enough stoopid in the world - we don't need it here.

I'm just trying to understand this. Why is there a stigma about being cautious about introducing GMOs the the ecosystem if we don't have an untouched backup of the ecosystem that sustains us. It's not as if we can un-introduce GMOs to the ecosystem once they are there so what is the problem with having strict controls over their deployment? Am I missing something?

You know that 'anarchy' is "a state of society without government or law" so if a government is ignoring the law it is halfway to anarchy already. I think the thing is that they don't value their freedom enough to stand up to the government that is constantly taking it away by deceiving the population.

If you fear the government then you are not free, if the government fears the people then you are.

The 2005 Energy act specifically put measures in place that prevents ordinary people from intefering with the placement of a nuclear reactor. It is impossible for a normal person, or a local community, under the law, to prevent the placement of a nuclear reactor in their community.

Nuclear power has too many establishment, operational and ongoing costs to be an attractive investment anymore. The existence of the Price-Anderson act shows investors that Nuclear power is an investment oxymoron. If it waa safe and profitable, then there would be no need for the P-A act.

I think it should be the other way around. We haven't invested enough in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power sources yet and we should develop them to derive maximum energy yeild from them.

Nuclear was scaled to quickly in the first place - jumping from 100Mw to 1Gw too quickly to understand the proper safety systems required and coming to terms with the surrounding factors that were not well understood when the plants were first conceptualized. Simply put like coal, nuclear power has consequences that weren't well understood.

I think there is a place for Nuclear power, just not in our generation. If you really support nuclear power and want to see it done properly stepping back now and building the foundational infrastructure whilst developing reactor technology means designing and building for 100 years to support a proper nuclear infrastructure that can last 1000-5000 years.

It is an ambitious long term goal that would change the very nature of the world economy to achieve that could guarantee the future of humanity instead of condeming it to reduced birth rates and transgenic disease the way the shortsighted vision the current nuclear industry does. People talk about Nuclear power, but if you engage in the cognitive effort of what is *really* required to make it work you find it is nothing like the nuclear industry we have now.

All of the current accidents show that humans are not mature enough to have the long terms vision required to deal with nuclear power right now.