[ale] ext3 v reiserfs

[Greg]

Since you can strip the logs out of ext3 and get ext files, which can be
exported to other OS's which have no ext3/reiserfs support, that could be a
compelling reason to use ext3 - the ability to go to a more universally
acceptable format.  However I think that only the BSD's are this way, as
they use SoftUpdates to the ffs to solve the problems that logging are
supposed to handle.  Don't know about Solaris.

I know that RH prefers ext3 while Suse prefers reiserfs, so I have stayed
with using the preferred file system when using either RH or Suse, though
you can change it if you want.

Perhaps if you told the list what the problem/task is that you are trying to
solve/accomplish better answers might come up, as well as other pertinient
issues ?

Good Luck,

Greg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org]On Behalf Of Jeff
> Hubbs
> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 11:54 AM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] ext3 v reiserfs
>
>
> Jim -
>
> According to Gentoo Linux' installation instructions, for file sizes of
> 4K and below, reiserfs performance can be 10-15 times faster and it says
> it scales well.   I guess the question becomes, when will you have
> occasion to push around a large quantity of files like that?
>
> - Jeff
>
>
> On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 11:08, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > I'm looking for some quick opinions (not trying to start a war) on why
> > ppl might prefer reiser over ext3, or vice versa.  Does anyone know of
> > some good independent benchmarks, etc.
> >
> > -Jim P.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> --
> Jeff Hubbs <hbbs at comcast.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>