From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Redeeman Subject: Re: praise the reiser4 developers! Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:56:22 +0200 Message-ID: <1081630582.5195.3.camel@redeeman.linux.dk> References: <1081542563.14002.1.camel@redeeman.linux.dk> <40778EAE.2090907@namesys.com> <21379.208.32.105.18.1081620265.squirrel@slaphack.com> Reply-To: redeeman@metanurb.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <21379.208.32.105.18.1081620265.squirrel@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Reiserfs Mailinglist On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 20:04, David Masover wrote: > Hans Reiser said: > > Redeeman wrote: > > > >>i must say! you own! > quite so. > > >>normally when i sync my portage, the disk noises and it takes ages. with > >>reiser4 it takes no time, and the disk doesent noise at all. also, now > >>it is my connection (50kb/s) that limits the speed > > On 768k dsl, I do notice that syncing portage does take less time. The > disk does spin, but it doesn't thrash -- the light stays on, but no noise. > > I haven't tried XFS, which seems like the only runner-up, but scares me > with how many things it patches, and isn't quite as sexy with plugins. xfs is not as fast on small files. but on large files it can match, i run xfs for my primary filesystem, but in difference from reiser4, the harddrive noises alot, where reiser4 on a magically way makes it just spin around normally > > > thanks so kindly. I think reiser4 is probably especially effective for > > laptops. > > It is, in theory. In practice, I think something other than reiser4 is > preventing my disk from spinning down. > > It's been months since I've tried a snapshot, though, as my laptop is dead > and at the manufacturer for service. This was a hardware problem, as the > screen is still dead even in BIOS, and reiser4 still worked when I hooked > up to a CRT. When it worked, though, the speed boost was pretty > incredible. > > One thing I hope happens sometime -- I notice that Linux doesn't swap > until it needs to. This means that if I have 512 megs of RAM, and 128 or > so is used by GNOME and such, and I let it idle, then that 128 megs never > gets swapped out. It would be helpful if it did -- if RAM was treated > just like a cache, so that least-frequently-used things get swapped out / > flushed to disk / purged from the disk cache, while more frequently used > things stay, probably with a slant towards more recently used things. > > I'm sure there could be more thought put into the actual implementation > and algorithm used. Linux does do this nice thing of using all available > RAM for something, the only problem is, some of the RAM that it "uses" is > wasted because it is used so infrequently. > > Ultimately, this is geared towards letting my laptop drive spin down for > longer. I use GNOME on it to show off to people who thing Linux is not > user-friendly, or is "a copy of Windows", but it only has 256 megs of ram, > which doesn't leave nearly enough for reiser4's ramdisk-like operations > (temporary changes to temporary files that should never touch disk). > > Normally, I sign all my emails, but I keep my PGP key on two machines > only, and don't trust it to the webmail server. If anyone cares, let me > know, and I'll re-send a signed copy of this email. -- Regards, Redeeman () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments