Re: ext4 and reiser4 availability

["Shirley Márquez Dúlcey" <user=15@nabble.blu.org>]

 Ben Holland wrote: 
> Well that and I was being quite facetious. I mean, to be honest, I used 
> resier3 for a while on my gentoo box, thought it was nice... but unless 
> reiserfs ever gets put in say, the defaults for redhat/fedoria/ubuntu 
> grabbing traction is going to be really really hard. And now with the 
> lead developer who (can I say) killed his wife... Also all the dev's on 
> ext3/4 and it's great stability and general all around awesomeness I 
> don't see reiser filling a need. ~Ben 

reiserfs does have some advantages. Even the existing version (reiser3) 
outperforms ext2,3,4 on directories with a lot of files, so it's a good 
choice for (say) a mail server using maildirs or an NNTP server. reiser4 
extends that advantage and adds space efficiency for small files by 
packing multiple small files into a single disk block. That's not as big 
a deal as it used to be now that disk space costs 20 cents per gigabyte, 
but it could matter if you were trying to implement a WinFS-like vision 
of file system as the ultimate database. Finally, reiserfs doesn't have 
a fixed inode limit; you don't have to worry about configuring your file 
system correctly for the mix of files you expect to have, it's all 
automatic. The defaults for extN are reasonable for many systems, but on 
a mail server you run out of inodes before you run out of space, and on 
a media server you waste a bunch of space unnecessarily on inodes you 
won't use. 

reiser4 appears to be dramatically faster than existing file systems at 
some operations. It is also slower at some others, so as usual it helps 
to know what the expected usage of a file system is before making your 
choice. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss