On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 09:22 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > 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.
I also use Pan, and recently switched to using Reiser4 on my laptop. I can tell that Pan starts much more quickly than it used to using Reiser3. It isn't nearly as fast as starting it from a USB Flash drive though. I don't know how it compares to ext3, although the flash drive was using a ext2 loopback on FAT-32 filesystem. -- Jonathan Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eSoft, Inc.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
