Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:41:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Shannon Hendrix <shannon@widomaker.com> Cc: "Andresen,Jason R." <jandrese@mitre.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: technical comparison Message-ID: <200105252241.f4PMfwv44488@earth.backplane.com> References: <20010522210824.C2734@widomaker.com> <20010523085147.N87127-100000@nausicaa.mitre.org> <20010523115748.C13163@widomaker.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ultimately something like Reiser will win over UFS, but performance
figures aren't the whole picture. Most of the bugs have been worked out
of UFS and the recovery tools are extremely mature. Only a handful
of edge cases have been found in the last decade. Nearly all the bugs
in the last few years have turned out to be buffer cache or VM bugs
rather then filesystem bugs. ResierFS has a long way to go before it
can be safely used on production systems. Linux, having just moved
to a totally new VM system also has a long way to go (and, for the same
reason, FreeBSD-5 has a long way to go before it can safely be used in
production). When Reiser starts to get close, I'll be the first one
to port it to FreeBSD :-)
Consider for a moment the development roadmap for UFS, EXT2FS, and
REISERFS. It took UFS and its supporting tools years to get as good as
it is for production purposes. It has taken EXT2FS a number of years
to reach where it is. ReiserFS is new, and it is going to be a while.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105252241.f4PMfwv44488>