> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:25:47AM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: >> why is that? thought reiser was faster than ext3 while ext3 would be >> considered more stable (in general). > Reiser has this "tail packing" option, as well as some other optimizations > that benefit sites with lots of small files (best example: Usenet feeds). > However, this can come at a price for really LARGE files (as a DB would need). Yes, both tail packing and other options can be turned on/off at mount time if you need more speed or space etc.. >> Before getting ways off topic: where can I find a good comparison / >> discussion on different filesystems? > Checkout > http://oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/ Interresting to see the benchmarks. But why is ext3 tested with several options and the other FS not? For example noatime and notail changes performance of ReiserFS too. > Since noone has mentioned XFS, let me throw in my recommendation for XFS. > XFS (like, probably, IBM's JFS) is a top-notch filesystem. > Try it out in your scenario, you might like it. How are the XFS fsck tools compared to the reiser ones? Reiserfsck has saved me on more than one occation =) > Ajay _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@sistina.com http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
