Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 27 April 2006 13:39, Mike McCarty
<Mike.McCarty@sbcglobal.net> was heard to say:
> Reiser is somewhat faster than ext3, but has much less error
> recovery toolset. It is also somewhat better at actual disc usage
> for many small files. OTOH, when large files are involved, it seems
> to be somewhat slower than ext3.
Since the latest benchmarking, which I had not seen until this
discussion, it looks like ext3 has been well shaken out. It compares
beautifully, I'll be sticking with it.
My personal experience with ext2 was that the occasional power failure
or accidental hitting of the switch caused just too many problems. I
still let the fsck happen every 30 mounts or so, I don't turn that
off.
The incidence of accidental shutdown hasn't changed, but with ext3
there haven't been corruptions. It's not the "loss of data" that I'm
most worried about, especially on a desktop machine,
because "important" information is not being written all the time.
What I want to avoid is corruption, and the journal does a wonderful
job of keeping things clean and ordered, even if it's 5 seconds out
of date.
Curt-
- --
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central
planning advocates in American history
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBRFEVpy9Y35yItIgBAQLRxgf+PlVstTiipj1soBfx8QK0/4BlO6Ke3sAK
rRHqUJaPlStu7KcltxWSAbWJu5kE5BF88FyGdakSGZpqCy/ZyalM/CggmV7378Qi
tkKyKDsEgfkoKaRn4eUBlcYMSIdaxg5jwcSTu277nM92kI/s+i+X6+X0mVMMwyM9
NPBZThJ+Y+LZZkyADxe00nZUItTMZf6KdM2le23U6z7vWwMTCIWC1RDbhtyh2pNR
F3f+5SBP4rM8M1/FAXkaOMVG2cP5ipewnLhOZJ/YmPxwrMaX2Gw4LpkYurjhq+hC
RVV3OLVuVATZhBlHu+dGO1vYou96k07Tokvdq6JKyjybf6ek7A9gnw==
=1aTQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: