| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:12:37 +0000 (UTC), James wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I would stay far away from reiser4. From what I can tell, reiser4 may |
| 4 |
> > never make it into the mainline kernel. Xfs and ext3 are both very |
| 5 |
> > good choices. Personally I have a /very slight/ preference for xfs, |
| 6 |
> > because of xfs_fsr and the tuning options available in /proc. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I understand the comments about reiser4, although folks claim the |
| 9 |
> performance is wonderful. But do you think that xfs will outperform |
| 10 |
> reiserfs (3 series?). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It certainly does when working with large files. However, I've switched |
| 13 |
some of my filesystems back to reiser because of the lack of any way of |
| 14 |
safely shrinking XFS filesystems (although enlarging them is easier than |
| 15 |
with reiser). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
New Intel opcode #007 PUKE: Put unmeaningful keywords everywhere |
Archives