On Saturday 12 May 2007 06:40, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 11 May 2007 13:50, Doug McGarrett wrote:
Without offering an epistle can a few people who do know give me an answer. Some slight technical description for your logic would help me a lot .
Reiserfs: 1) is faster --organized on a b-tree (very efficient) 2) conserves significant disk space (not fixed cluster size) 3) recovers faster (way faster) on a crash 4) is more reliable (because of the first 1-3)
My experience with Reiser is exact opposite. Exf3 has not caused any problems to me ever. Reiser corrupted the file system a couple of times beyond the point of recovery. Also the recovery in Exf3 is much faster. Exf3 simply replays the journal and that's it. Reiser was re-playing records one by one and that usually took much longer (both tested on AMD 64 with 1GB of memory)
Detailed Epistle can be found in the openSUSE reference (suse 10.0) in section 34.2.1.
note: you will notice the speed difference under load, depending on the application.
-- Kind regards,
M Harris <><
-- Regards, George Osvald OK Studio ® http://www.okstudio.com.au Email: mail@okstudio.com.au -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org