On Sunday 21 February 2010 16:16:51 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > On Sonntag 21 Februar 2010, Mick wrote: > > On 21 February 2010 14:03, Volker Armin Hemmann > > > > <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sonntag 21 Februar 2010, Mick wrote: > > >> I know that some of you have been using reiser4 for some years now. > > >> How does it compare in performance and reliability in terms to > > >> reiserfs and xfs? > > > > > > they don't even come close in performance. XFS sucks with files who are > > > not multi megabyte in size. > > > > > >> A few years ago I remember there were problems compiling or running > > >> some applications/libraries on reiser4 - are these problems now over? > > >> Any gotchas? > > > > > > a loooong time ago there was a bug when compiling kde and without > > > compression. Fixed shortly afterwards, never had a problem again. > > > > Thanks Volker for a prompt reply. Is reiser4 still being developed, > > or is Linux now moving towards ext4? > > linux is moving toward btrfs. ext4 is just a stop gap measure. One that is > only a good alternative if you don't care about your data.
I know what you meant, and I know what Mick meant, but the question is nonsensical. In terms of filesystems, linux does not "move" anywhere. There are too many variables, too many options, too many scenarios to consider one fs the favoured one. The correct question is "Is this thing supported?". The answer is that btrfs, reiser4 and ext4fs are all supported. The other question is "Is this things at least somewhat stable?" The answer is yes, except for ext4fs, for which I have yet to see a statement from it's devs that the on-disk format is not indeed frozen. > > btw, the one point that kept resier4 out was 'layer violations'. > Interesstingly btrfs is nothing but a huge 'violation' ... > > And yes, Edward is still working on it. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
