<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>akkartik</author><text>Alright, I&apos;m going to start calling people on HN about this pet peeve of mine:&lt;p&gt;Please stop &apos;finding it amusing&apos; when you disagree with people. It makes you sound arrogant and passive-aggressive. Even if the other side is &lt;i&gt;totally&lt;/i&gt; wrong, hammering that fact in is rhetorically counter-productive.</text><parent_chain><item><author>CrLf</author><text>I find these statements amusing...&lt;p&gt;As it happens, neither is ext3 an obsolete filesystem (I have many machines using it just fine, thank you, with no intention to migrate to less tested filesystems just because they&apos;re &quot;new&quot;), nor &quot;data=ordered&quot; has significant performance problems.&lt;p&gt;More amusing than this just the fact that the filesystem is a bottleneck for a web browser... an application that should be network and CPU bound...</text></item><item><author>jmillikin</author><text>Not to discount the work that Mozilla has been doing, but it seems like the &quot;improvement&quot; they added is actually just a workaround for distros that configure filesystems incorrectly.&lt;p&gt;That is, his machine is configured to use an obsolete filesystem (ext3) in a mode with significant performance problems (data=ordered).&lt;p&gt;There are numerous ways that a machine can be mis-configured such that it suffers from poor performance. It would be better if Firefox detected these and warned about them, rather than just silently working around the broken-ness.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Good news: Mozilla fixed their damn browser</title><url>http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2011/12/good-news-mozilla-fixed-their-damn-browser/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jmillikin</author><text>data=ordered certainly &lt;i&gt;does&lt;/i&gt; have significant performance problems. Most notably, it causes fsync() to actually act like sync(), so flushing a single file to disk can potentially cause a flush of the entire disk buffer instead!</text><parent_chain><item><author>CrLf</author><text>I find these statements amusing...&lt;p&gt;As it happens, neither is ext3 an obsolete filesystem (I have many machines using it just fine, thank you, with no intention to migrate to less tested filesystems just because they&apos;re &quot;new&quot;), nor &quot;data=ordered&quot; has significant performance problems.&lt;p&gt;More amusing than this just the fact that the filesystem is a bottleneck for a web browser... an application that should be network and CPU bound...</text></item><item><author>jmillikin</author><text>Not to discount the work that Mozilla has been doing, but it seems like the &quot;improvement&quot; they added is actually just a workaround for distros that configure filesystems incorrectly.&lt;p&gt;That is, his machine is configured to use an obsolete filesystem (ext3) in a mode with significant performance problems (data=ordered).&lt;p&gt;There are numerous ways that a machine can be mis-configured such that it suffers from poor performance. It would be better if Firefox detected these and warned about them, rather than just silently working around the broken-ness.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Good news: Mozilla fixed their damn browser</title><url>http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2011/12/good-news-mozilla-fixed-their-damn-browser/</url></story>