ext4 and reiser4 availability

[Ben Holland]

Well I mean, you wouldn't use a file system like XFS or JFS for a mail
sever, you CAN but by and large you won't. I can see very specific cases
where different file systems are great, I mean, they were built... however
if I were able to configure the number of inodes on ext3 I think I would
rather use that then resier by and large. just my opinion though. ~Ben

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Mark J. Dulcey <mark at buttery.org> wrote:

> Ben Holland wrote:
>
> > Well that and I was being quite facetious. I mean, to be honest, I used
> > resier3 for a while on my gentoo box, thought it was nice... but unless
> > reiserfs ever gets put in say, the defaults for redhat/fedoria/ubuntu
> > grabbing traction is going to be really really hard. And now with the lead
> > developer who (can I say) killed his wife... Also all the dev's on ext3/4
> > and it's great stability and general all around awesomeness I don't see
> > reiser filling a need. ~Ben
> >
>
> reiserfs does have some advantages. Even the existing version (reiser3)
> outperforms ext2,3,4 on directories with a lot of files, so it's a good
> choice for (say) a mail server using maildirs or an NNTP server. reiser4
> extends that advantage and adds space efficiency for small files by packing
> multiple small files into a single disk block. That's not as big a deal as
> it used to be now that disk space costs 20 cents per gigabyte, but it could
> matter if you were trying to implement a WinFS-like vision of file system as
> the ultimate database. Finally, reiserfs doesn't have a fixed inode limit;
> you don't have to worry about configuring your file system correctly for the
> mix of files you expect to have, it's all automatic. The defaults for extN
> are reasonable for many systems, but on a mail server you run out of inodes
> before you run out of space, and on a media server you waste a bunch of
> space unnecessarily on inodes you won't use.
>
> reiser4 appears to be dramatically faster than existing file systems at
> some operations. It is also slower at some others, so as usual it helps to
> know what the expected usage of a file system is before making your choice.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.