| 1 |
Am 03.10.2013 18:32, schrieb Kerin Millar: |
| 2 |
> On 03/10/2013 13:08, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 03.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Kerin Millar: |
| 4 |
>>> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ... |
| 9 |
>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box |
| 11 |
>>>>> for /var, |
| 12 |
>>>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for |
| 13 |
>>>>> /usr/portage and |
| 14 |
>>>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all. |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself |
| 18 |
>>>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will |
| 19 |
>>>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the |
| 20 |
>>>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle |
| 21 |
>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and |
| 23 |
>>>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it |
| 24 |
>>>> needs |
| 25 |
>>>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer |
| 26 |
>>>> but in |
| 27 |
>>>> real terms there is effectively no-one |
| 28 |
>>>> |
| 29 |
>>>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and |
| 30 |
>>>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use |
| 31 |
>>>> should |
| 32 |
>>>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk. |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>>> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL |
| 35 |
>>> (big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated |
| 36 |
>>> compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL: |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> and that one was solved when - 4-5 years ago? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Consider the manner in which the hard requirement on the BKL was |
| 41 |
> removed, then objectively argue that its "deep use of the specific |
| 42 |
> properties of the BKL" did not necessitate what would quite reasonably |
| 43 |
> be described as a compromise. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
>>> |
| 47 |
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423 |
| 48 |
>>> |
| 49 |
>>> |
| 50 |
>>> |
| 51 |
>>> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was |
| 52 |
>>> addressed I do not know. |
| 53 |
>>> |
| 54 |
>>> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail |
| 55 |
>>> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue |
| 56 |
>>> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4). |
| 57 |
>>> |
| 58 |
>> |
| 59 |
>> why don't you mention that reiserfs used barriers by default - and ext3 |
| 60 |
>> did not. Just to look good at 'using defaults benchmarks' (like |
| 61 |
>> phoronix)? I mean, if we are digging around in history.... and btrfs is |
| 62 |
>> still broken in my regards... |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> Because none of this passive aggressive rhetoric would have had any |
| 65 |
> meaningful context within the content of my previous post. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
while your message had no meaningful context within this thread at all. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Oh look, there was a data eating bug in XFS X years ago. Or oh look, |
| 70 |
some very heavy patching was done in ext4 over the time.... |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
are just as meaning- and helpful as your message: |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
not at all. |
Archives