On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 15:03 +0100, arne anka wrote: > > systems. Since not many people are recommending reiserfs nowadays due to > > lack of maintenance, regardless of being considered better than ext2/3, > > ext3 remains as the choice. > > it's not only "lack of maintenance" and reiserfs is not "considered to be > better" (by whom?)! > the best you could say is, that opinions are divided on the subject. > ext3 has a long history of kernel support compared to reiserfs -- if > reiserfs would be considered better, ext3 would not have gained the > attrention it got -- there's no natural choice. > even suse, a long term supporter and co-developer of reiser switched to > ext3 -- and certainly not due to lack of maintenance.
I have to disagree here - because my own opinion is that ext2/3 are not the best for every purpose, and are demonstrably a poor choice for OSM maps on an SD card for instance. Last I heard reiserfs3 is still being maintained, and it has some real advantages for OSM maps (reiserfs doesnt have inode limits like ext2/3 does), and is much faster (against ext3). The reason you give "if reiserfs would be considered better, ext3 would not have gained the attrention it got" is not valid - politics and personal animosity between the reiserfs developer and the ext2/3 devs played a huge part with the ext2/3 devs having the inside run and able to play politics more effectively (both side are not blameless here) - the history is out there for all to see. The decision wasnt based on technical merits but who played politics better as far as I can see. There is a certain amount of YMMV with file system choices depending on your usage scenarios, but personally I would really like to use reiserfs and dump ext2/3 and all the problems they cause on the FR (lost data/corrupted filesystems, slow performance, ...) that I have. BillK _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community