Re: ext4 and reiser4 availability

["David Rosenstrauch" <user=20@nabble.blu.org>]

 Mark J. Dulcey wrote: 
> 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.