Harry Putnam wrote: >I'm comparing to just a percieved difference in processing on former >os of choice Fedora Test 4 using ext3 throughout. > >
Ah, ok. Well, you are probably correct, reiserfs can be expected to be noticably slower at certain operations (find, rm -r, etc) on some systems, due to the fact that readdir() doesn't return the filenames in an optimum order, unless you do some copy/tar tricks. I've mentioned previously that I switched from xfs to reiserfs on my root filesystem because I see an increase in performance. But that was done using the backup-format-restore-backup-format-restore sequence. It is entirely possible that if I had been using reiserfs all along, the hash vs disk order could have diverged to the point that I would have seen an increase in performance from a switch to xfs! Or maybe the performance of reiserfs on my system will degrade over time, as I saw another poster mention happen to him on a different thread. If that happens, I'll either have to do a backup-format-restore sequence to fix, or give ext3 a try. -Richard -- [email protected] mailing list
