Re: default file system?

[Markus Gamenius <markus@gamenius.net>]

ons, 12.05.2004 kl. 19.28 skrev Harald Thingelstad:
> tirsdag 11. mai 2004, 23:29, skrev Petter Reinholdtsen:
> > [Andreas Schuldei]
> >
> > > what are our criteria? reliability is certainly high up on the list,
> > > but speed and low cpu usage are important, too.
> >
> > Actually, performance was not considered when selecting default file
> > system.  Here are some of the factors I considered:
> ..
> 
> I don't think this is the thing to change in Skolelinux right now. 
> These things have been known for a long time, so it'd be odd if interest 
> caught up now.


I totaly agree. We should not start this kind of discusions now. It's
for later, after 1.0.

Markus

> 
> Later, perhaps.
> Personally, I'd like to see how Reiser4 fares, as it promises even better 
> speed and has full crash recovery. (Build new directory tree from file 
> information only.) Reiser4 is also a revised version of Reiserfs (v3) where 
> they've changed some tree algoritms and so on, but it's not a full rebuild.
> Right now, it undergoes the kind of meticulous testing Reiser3 didn't (which 
> gave it a bad first impression), then it's time for acceptance into the main 
> kernel.
> 
> If a disk with Reiserfs crashes now, data recovery could prove difficult. 
> Other journalling systems like XFS and JFS has less history with the Linux 
> kernel than Reiser3 has, and show more bugs.
> 
> Some have also talked about distributed filesystems, like AFS. Could be great 
> too, but later.
> 
> Harald
>