Hans Reiser wrote:
Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
Hi,
Looking the http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz article, I
see that
in some cases ReiserFS 3.X is better than Reiser4.
Correct me if I am wrong. High numbers means poor, more delay.
Now, because we plan to support both: R
Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Hi,
>
>Looking the http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz article, I
> see that
>in some cases ReiserFS 3.X is better than Reiser4.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong. High numbers means poor, more delay.
>
>Now, because we plan to support both: Reiser3
Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
Hello
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 08:28 +, Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
Hi,
Looking the http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz article, I
see that
in some cases ReiserFS 3.X is better than Reiser4.
Correct me if I am wrong. High numbers means poor,
Hello
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 08:28 +, Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looking the http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz article, I
> see that
> in some cases ReiserFS 3.X is better than Reiser4.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong. High numbers means poor, more delay.
>
>
Hello
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 08:28 +, Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looking the http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz article, I
> see that
> in some cases ReiserFS 3.X is better than Reiser4.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong. High numbers means poor, more delay.
>
>
Hi,
Looking the http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz article, I
see that
in some cases ReiserFS 3.X is better than Reiser4.
Correct me if I am wrong. High numbers means poor, more delay.
Now, because we plan to support both: Reiser3 and Reiser4 in our OS,
we plan to kno
