On Tuesday 01 May 2007 23:18, M Harris wrote: > On Tuesday 01 May 2007 21:40, Bob S wrote: > > Curious.......Just what is it about EXT3 that makes you want to return to > > the "sanity" of Reiser? > > bob can answer for himself... > > ... but the reiserfs is organized on a b-tree and allocates only as much > actual disk-space as it needs... so no wasted space--ie. small files > residing in large fixed-size clusters which take longer to find... ext3 is > journalled, but its slower, and it wastes space... esp on systems with > thousands of small files. typically reseirfs is typically more stable than > ext3, and it also doesn't have the long file check times associated with > ext(2) ext(3). The old ext filesystems (for general purpose) are > "insane". > Thanks for your input M Harris. I guess that you think Peter has the same reasons you do. Just thought I would ask him.
I guess that the Rieser file system would have been great for saving space on my 250MB disk years ago, Probably not a significant worry these days with 250GB disks. As far as speed is concerned with today's super fast CPU's and ram I doubt anybody could see a speed difference. Don't know where you get the "more stable" statement from; must be personal experience. I've been on this list for many years and have seen many posts about problems with Rieser. Don't ever recall seeing anything about ext3 causing stability problems. Anyway, not my intention to argue with anybody over the merits of this vs that. To each his own. Whatever floats your boat they say. That's what Linux is all about. I am just curious as to why anyone would make statements about ext2 &3 being an insane FS. Bob S -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
