| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kerin Millar <kerframil@×××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ... |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for |
| 12 |
>>> /var, |
| 13 |
>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage |
| 14 |
>>> and |
| 15 |
>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself |
| 20 |
>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will |
| 21 |
>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the |
| 22 |
>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and |
| 25 |
>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs |
| 26 |
>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer 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 should |
| 31 |
>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL (big |
| 35 |
> kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated compromise |
| 36 |
> when the time came to eliminate the BKL: |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423 |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was |
| 41 |
> addressed I do not know. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail packing. |
| 44 |
> Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue that was |
| 45 |
> supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4). |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> In general, I would recommend ext4 or xfs as the go-to filesystems these |
| 48 |
> days. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> --Kerin |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
XFS is honestly looking mighty good if your host has 8 cores or more: |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
http://lwn.net/Articles/476263/ |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
If data corruption is *totally* not acceptable, and if you have more |
| 58 |
than one disks of similar sizes, ZFS might even be more suitable. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Rgds, |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
FdS Pandu E Poluan |
| 63 |
~ IT Optimizer ~ |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
• LOPSA Member #15248 |
| 66 |
• Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com |
| 67 |
• Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan |
Archives