On Sunday 13 May 2007 20:52, John Andersen wrote: > On Sunday 13 May 2007, Vince L wrote: > > I seem to remember reading something either by him or > > quoting him, which iirc in essence said that none of the distros people > > understood reiserfs properly, that suse's changes were wrong, and even > > his developers don't fully understand it. > > Souce please...
Take what I have written at face value, it is sufficiently caveated that I don't feel obliged to spend the odd hour looking for a source and neither should you feel obliged to work hard to refute it. > > > Resiserfs is at a dead end, and with hindsight it could have > > been seen to be a dead end way back. > > Ext2 and 3 are equally candidates for dead-end-ism. > The only reason suse re-emphasized ext2/3 is because > RedHat does all the maintenance for them. > > There are more than a few published benchmarks on this > topic such as http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388/print > > But it seems pointless to re-start this discussion, especially in the light > of comments like: > "with hindsight it could have been seen to be a dead end way back" Your link concerns the technical merits, whereas I am concerned with maintainability. I am indifferent as to the technical merits, if the future of reiserfs resides solely in Hans Reiser's head [although I do feel somewhat persuaded of the technical merits]. He has metaphorically fallen under a bus for the time being, which should be a big wake up call. I am not bothered about proving very much about Hans Reiser's style one way or the other. But I am very bothered to see some positive argument that reiserfs is well understood in the community and that should the worst happen for him personally, the community is able to maintain it with good consensus. And this is aside from any consideration of the trial he now faces. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
