ons, 12.05.2004 kl. 19.28 skrev Harald Thingelstad: > tirsdag 11. mai 2004, 23:29, skrev Petter Reinholdtsen: > > [Andreas Schuldei] > > > > > what are our criteria? reliability is certainly high up on the list, > > > but speed and low cpu usage are important, too. > > > > Actually, performance was not considered when selecting default file > > system. Here are some of the factors I considered: > .. > > I don't think this is the thing to change in Skolelinux right now. > These things have been known for a long time, so it'd be odd if interest > caught up now.
I totaly agree. We should not start this kind of discusions now. It's for later, after 1.0. Markus > > Later, perhaps. > Personally, I'd like to see how Reiser4 fares, as it promises even better > speed and has full crash recovery. (Build new directory tree from file > information only.) Reiser4 is also a revised version of Reiserfs (v3) where > they've changed some tree algoritms and so on, but it's not a full rebuild. > Right now, it undergoes the kind of meticulous testing Reiser3 didn't (which > gave it a bad first impression), then it's time for acceptance into the main > kernel. > > If a disk with Reiserfs crashes now, data recovery could prove difficult. > Other journalling systems like XFS and JFS has less history with the Linux > kernel than Reiser3 has, and show more bugs. > > Some have also talked about distributed filesystems, like AFS. Could be great > too, but later. > > Harald >
