on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 03:16:54PM -0500, Tom Allison (tallison1@twmi.rr.com) wrote: > So, unlike what I read in ReiserFS, I can just hang out on this for a > while and then upgrade at my leisure? This is so totally cool!!!! > Is there an performance difference between this "conversion" and > starting from scratch? I've got both ext3fs and reiserfs on my most recent laptop build. There are advantages to each. Reiserfs has better performance with larger filesystems, particularly for large directory listings. In one case, I've got a directory with 125,000 files in it. Under ext*, directory operations are very slow, on the order of several seconds, due to the need to scan a file list. Reiserfs's use of a hash to store directory entries makes manipulation far faster. OTOH, ext3fs has far less disk overhead for small partitions. Word is that the reiserfs journal requires 32MB, regardless of partition size, while ext3's .journal file is sized proportionately. So, my /, /boot, and /tmp partitions are ext3fs, /var, /usr, and /home are reiserfs. There's room for all. And that's the majick of GNU/Linux: there's choice. It's about choice. Incidentally, those who don't want to wait for the 2.4.15 support can apply the ext3fs patch from Debian. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgpO1zklODZ1p.pgp
Description: PGP signature