| 1 |
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 20:37:13 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: |
| 2 |
> Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the |
| 3 |
> filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously |
| 4 |
> bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is |
| 5 |
> also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means |
| 6 |
> mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than |
| 7 |
> ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and |
| 8 |
> the root partition is only 7% used? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I find that in normal use, most filesystems have a large range of number of |
| 11 |
files per directory and the spread of how big those files are. In other |
| 12 |
words, a huge mixture of everything. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
reiser and ext both have areas they are very good at but in normal use the |
| 15 |
good and bad performance evens out so you get roughly the same with both |
| 16 |
filesystems. The deciding factor then becomes "which filesystem tools are you |
| 17 |
most comfortable with?" because that's the one you should be using. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There are special cases - if the portage tree is on it's own filesystem, ext3 |
| 20 |
does give better performance. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of |
| 23 |
> being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support |
| 24 |
> than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose |
| 25 |
> ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As I said in another post, I don't believe that either reiser or ext3 is |
| 28 |
inherently more or less safe than the other. Your upgrade path to ext4 does |
| 29 |
change things, so yeah, you have a perfectly valid reason to switch to ext3 |
| 30 |
right away |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives