--=-Uutskt+iChk7AuskfdbD Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 15:46, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include <hallo.h> > Joe Radinger wrote on Mon Feb 04, 2002 um 02:37:19PM: >=20 > > > It kind of depends on your hardware and disk usage. In many cases, ho= wever, > > > ext3 has higher performance because it can serialize operations. > >=20 > > hmm > > hardware is a p2 350 mhz with 120gb (linux) + 20gb (beos and windows > > thus not used :))), with 256 mb ram.=20 >=20 > Stop! Before making comparisons, please look for the average > _throughput_. It may happen that you have the _feeling_ that the machine > is slower since _more_ data is transferred using ext3 and the CPU load > is higher. would this mean that at the same HIGH systemload, ext3 is notable slower than ext2, because disk-IO is expensive? how would i measure throughput. i would measure the time compiling a huge package with lots of files, once with ext2, once with reiserfs, both times at runlevel 1. =20 > > maybe i should try and benchmark my system. any suggestions? >=20 > Why not... >=20 > > > > i think i remember some talks about namespace-collisions. > > >=20 > > > I don't recall anything like that. I've been using both ext3 and Reis= erFS > > > since the 2.4.5 kernel. Maybe it was before that?=20 > >=20 > > sure it was some time ago. >=20 > The reiserfs patch for 2.2.19/20 has collitions with ext3. Not a problem > in 2.4. collisions that make problems if only one system (reiser/ext3) gets used? or is the mere existance of the kernelmodule enough (or does it not compile). sorry for such a load of questions. i have some customers, that cannot switch to 2.4 yet, because they use some custom network-modules, which are not available/compatible with 2.4. they would like to use some journaling system, but they ant to decide for themselfes [that means, that some of them would use ext3 and other reiserfs] :( --=-Uutskt+iChk7AuskfdbD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA8XrqjyOLl//lX6PMRAlXlAKDOrQSXH8SV5d7KxwudvKDtpy6bcgCcDfAZ xMWK67g0WYchJIv9ADyNljY= =iMpV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Uutskt+iChk7AuskfdbD--
