Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 02:22:23 +0200 From: Munish Chopra <chopra@runbox.com> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ReiserFS (was: JFS (was: The FreeBSD core team needs your help)) Message-ID: <20010708022223.D271@arcadia.megadeb.org> In-Reply-To: <20010708090243.U75626@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@FreeBSD.ORG on Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 09:02:43AM %2B0930 References: <20010707132458.D75626@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010707144259.Q550-100000@consult-meyers.com> <20010708090243.U75626@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 09:02:43AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: [snip a whole boatload of stuff] > > I don't know enough about ReiserFS to be able to give a useful > opinion. The Linux people I know are by no means in agreement about > its merits, but I've heard that it's best as a "special purpose" FS > for small files. I don't know how valid that statement is. > Performance with a ton of small files is excellent, yes. It also saves space because it doesn't waste big blocks for small files etc., but for technical merits one should really read the paper on it. Real-world though, expect to find a lot of odd stuff in your lost+found dir on Linux. You can also expect weird behavior, though in general performance on (certain) kernels of the 2.4.x series has been quite good and stable. I'm still more impressed by XFS (on paper), but I've never run it on Linux myself. From those that have though, I hear it's very good, and the SGI folks seem to be putting a lot of work into key areas. Some of the kiddie diseases are wearing off apparently, and it's actually maturing nicely. Anyway, both are very interesting in the different approaches they take. -- -Munish To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010708022223.D271>