| 1 |
> Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the |
| 2 |
> filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously |
| 3 |
> bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is |
| 4 |
> also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means |
| 5 |
> mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than |
| 6 |
> ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and |
| 7 |
> the root partition is only 7% used? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of |
| 10 |
> being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support |
| 11 |
> than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose |
| 12 |
> ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Oh, and according to this benchmark |
| 15 |
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html |
| 16 |
reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame. |
Archives