Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> >> >> Well, inode location in reiser4 changed comparing to reiserfs. reiser4 >> groups inodes of files of one directory together (reiserfs did not do >> that), but still allocated disk space for inodes dynamically as >> reiserfs. >> So, I guess that reiser4 will be better than reiserfs, but >> still worse than ext[23]. Would you verify this guess it please? > I wouild not assume this. There is a huge difference with respect to this usage pattern between reiser4 and reiser3, it should dramatically improve. I don't know if we will be better or worse than ext3, it could be either, best to measure it.
