On Saturday 12 May 2007 06:40, M Harris wrote: > On Friday 11 May 2007 13:50, Doug McGarrett wrote: > > > Without offering an epistle can a few people who do know give me an > > > answer. Some slight technical description for your logic would help me > > > a lot . > > Reiserfs: > 1) is faster --organized on a b-tree (very efficient) > 2) conserves significant disk space (not fixed cluster size) > 3) recovers faster (way faster) on a crash > 4) is more reliable (because of the first 1-3)
My experience with Reiser is exact opposite. Exf3 has not caused any problems to me ever. Reiser corrupted the file system a couple of times beyond the point of recovery. Also the recovery in Exf3 is much faster. Exf3 simply replays the journal and that's it. Reiser was re-playing records one by one and that usually took much longer (both tested on AMD 64 with 1GB of memory) > > Detailed Epistle can be found in the openSUSE reference (suse 10.0) in > section 34.2.1. > > note: you will notice the speed difference under load, depending on the > application. > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > > M Harris <>< -- Regards, George Osvald OK Studio ® http://www.okstudio.com.au Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
