On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 at 16:11, Juan Miguel Cacho wrote:
> PS: Is it true that if you are using ReiserFS and your drive develops
> a bad block you are totally screwed?
I think this will be a relevant piece, from the FAQ at Namesys's website:
Q: How does ReiserFS support bad block handling?
A: <http://www.namesys.com/bad-block-handling.html>
Unfortunately no news about the status of the badblocks patches for the
latest stable (?) kernel. I do not know if 2.4.7 has these put in,
already. Perhaps those interested may ask the mailing list (the ReiserFS
development list, in particular). :)
Also something I saw in the same FAQ when I checked again:
-----[ ReiserFS ]-----
Q: Performance is poor, and my disk is 96% full because I like to fully
utilize my company's resources.
A: Once a disk drive gets more than 85% full, the performance starts to
suffer unless using a repacker (which isn't implemented yet.) You can
probably get away with 92%, but if performance is valued you are making a
mistake to keep it any fuller. This is true for almost all file systems.
ReiserFS does better than others because, due to our packing tails
together, for the same amount of data we are a lower percentage of full.
-----[ ReiserFS ]-----
Again for the benefit of those who may want to get to know XFS a little
bit more, here is the reply of Steve Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (dated Sun, 22
Jul 2001 08:03:31 -0500) to a message of mine to the XFS mailing list
about performance of near-full filesystems.
-----[ XFS ]-----
If you create a large number of files in XFS, inodes are allocated
dynamically for them. If you remove all the files, the inodes are not
returned to free space. On something like ext2 inodes are allocated at
mkfs time and the space is never available for anything else. This I think
is what you were referring to.
XFS will slow down doing allocations when it is really full, you are no
where near full, 99.x% full is nearly full. Basically XFS chops the
filesystem into allocation groups (1 to 4 Gbytes each), free space is
managed independently in each of these. The slowdown happens when you have
to scan through lots of allocation groups looking for space to extend a
file. There is an in memory summary structure which tells you if it is
worth even looking in an allocation group, so it is not a major slowdown -
unless you have lots of parallel allocation calls going on at the time.
-----[ XFS ]-----
I hope this comparison will be taken as constructively as possible by
fellow members of the list. The information I have just presented have
been quoted from developers of both filesystems (in ReiserFS's case it was
from their FAQ, in XFS's sake from a reply by one of their lead
developers).
--> Jijo
--
Federico Sevilla III :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator :: The Leather Collection, Inc.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
