On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Aleksander Adamowski wrote: > Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to > manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced filesystem. > After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a > new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. IIRC tests showed there was not much difference in performance between reiserfs and ext3. Reiserfs speeds up by using notail, and ext3 when using writeback. Results depend on what you are doing. A relatively new test is here: http://www.gurulabs.com/ext3-reiserfs.html But remember it is only benchmarks, no real thing.
> If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with > Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". O dear, how terrible. > Yes, ext2 and ext3 are > slower than FAT16/32. FAT is definatly slower than ext2/3. At least on a linux machine. It is likely that the native windows driver is faster than the linux one. But I cannot see I really notice that on my machine, and there is no good way to compare, because it is a completly different system. At least ext doesn't fragment as much as FAT. So in the end, it will certainly be faster :) > > So what do you think about changing the default FS type to Reiser in mdk9.1? I would hate it. I do not trust reiserfs as much as ext2/3. The speed gain is neglible, it is not accesible from a windows partition on the same pc. Danny > >
