Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2912 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Failed ReiserFS
  • From: Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:04:29 -0600 (CST)
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502091553071.25227@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Allen wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:23:47PM -0500, Amanda B Hickman wrote:
> > Is there anyone out there who is happy with reiserfs?
>
> I for one am. I use it on all boxes and on my slackware machines and I've
> never had a probem like what you all are saying. If you read benchmarks,
> Resiser is the best all around for speed.

I guess that depends on "whose benchmarks" and "what workload" and
probably a huge host of other issues (like, which kernel, what mount
options, blah blah blah).

My benchmarks for *my* workloads show reiser getting creamed by jfs and,
for some workloads, ext3 beats reiser as well. It all depends on what
your workloads are.

Admittedly, it's old and (like almost every test) the methodology leaves
a great deal to question, but this test shows ext3 13-14% faster than
resierfs on "create" and 55% faster in 'delete'.

http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/Oct/0554.html

This shouldn't get into a "my filesystem is faster (bigger) than yours"
"discussion", but I wanted to show that your statement that "Reiser is
the best all around for speed" is not universally true and therefore
when stated as a fact can be categorically shown to be /untrue/.

(Disproving a fact is not the same as proving it's opposite, by the way;
I am not saying that reiserfs is not the fastest for /any/ workload, it
very well might be.)

--
Carpe diem - Seize the day.
Carp in denim - There's a fish in my pants!

Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@xxxxxxxxxxx>

< Previous Next >