On Jun 23, 2008, at 7:15 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
I guess it’s down to JFS…
I'm not sure what the use case we're talking about is, but for many
use cases reiser3 is a good choice. Here are a few links to papers
which analyzed various filesystems (including reiser3, JFS, XFS,
ext3, and NTFS) and which altogether suggest that reiser3 is better
engineered for data correctness (at the expense of availability) than
most:
http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/wiki/Bibliography#LocalFilesystems
Also note that I recently learned that the benchmarks that we've
looked at over the years were mostly done with write barriers turned
on by reiser3 and write barriers turned off by ext3:
http://lwn.net/Articles/283161
Andrew Morton vaguely recalled something like 30% performance loss
when turning on write barriers for ext3.
The thread is interesting to follow. Chris Mason (who worked on
reiser3 at the time and is I think chief architect of btrfs now)
cooked up a test script which could cause filesystem corruption in
ext3 with about 50% probability in case of power loss.
I agree that ZFS and btrfs are interesting alternatives, and I also
remain interested in reiser4. Note that you can use ZFS today on a
Free Software operating system -- just install OpenSolaris. (I use
Nexenta -- Solaris with apt-get.)
Regards,
Zooko
