-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi to all.
Very recently I have dug into reiserfs 4 (using linux-2.6.11) on a test
machine I have at work. The whole goal was to see the benifits of
version 4 as compared to 3.6 (speed and reliability) which I have heard
all about the last few months.
Now I don't pretend to be an expert on reiserfs (even though I have used
it very successfully for probably something going on 2 years now),
however I was not impressed by it at all to tell the truth.
On the namesys site they have a whole page dedicated to benchmarks,
which of course I have read, but from the results I have gotten I cannot
think of any sane reason why someone would want to use reiserfs4 over 3.6.
The write speeds of version 4 are moderate (single stream) .. and very
good when looking at more than one stream at once, but read/delete
speeds utterly and truly suck (from what I have found [link below for my
review]). This brings me back to here to ask those of you who are using
it to share their views and experiences.
Maybe I am doing something wrong, maybe not. The first thing that I
noticed after creating the reiserfs4 partition was it's size.... 188KB.
Is this right? Reiserfs 3.6 has an initial size of 33MB's. I know what
this is (journal), but is it correct that reiserfs4's is initially so
small, or is something really mucked up here (explaining the very bad
results)?
I posted my findings on my website if you are interested to compare to.
The machine I used is however a low-end machine (500MHz) with an IDE
drive, as it was the only machine I could risk for the tests (in case
the machine blew up, immigrated, or just vanished ;-))
So, what are your experiences / views?
Oh yes, the link to my "review" =>
http://axljab.homelinux.org/Reiserfs_3.6_vs_4.0
Greetings
Ralph
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCQv+YAWKxH5yWMT8RAhJpAJ0ZYd4fAZI5Rhi2w0WX3TzdUJ31FwCg2uEk
dBx/FztdS1XZyn5XSe/ozNA=
=z47U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[email protected] mailing list
