From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:59:04 +0300 Message-ID: <3E4A28F8.2030506@namesys.com> References: <93F527C91A6ED411AFE10050040665D0049C06D5@corpusmx1.us.dg.com> <3E4A266E.2A258472@interface-ag.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <3E4A266E.2A258472@interface-ag.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Dirk Schenkewitz Cc: Reiserfs List Dirk Schenkewitz wrote: >Wayne, > >berthiaume_wayne@emc.com schrieb: > > >> Dirk, I'd be interested in hearing from you your performance >>experience with ext3 when it reaches 96% full. >> >> > >Well (*shrug*), there seems to be nothing special about it. I did >not do any timing test when such a fileysytem went full. In fact, >becoming 100% full is not "mormal", it happens when I put stuff >on it just to have it out of the way for some time. The filesystem >is then used as some kind of "storage cellar". > >Aside from that - speed becomes noticeable (I believe, at least) >when using 'xv' on a directory with lots of pictures, say, between >2000 and 3000, and the thumbnails are loaded during the first access. >This takes more than a minute (estimated, I did not look at the >clock). > >Another thing is when 'xv' creates the thumbnails. A few times it >happened that a filesystem which was rather full ran out of space >when creating the thumbnails. (That's not critical, all you "loose" >are some of the thumbnails, which can be recreated any time later.) >But I don't know how/when 'xv' stores the thumbnails, I only know >that they are kept in memory as long as they are in use. Then linux >itself does some buffering, so only the first access on a directory >can make a testimony. That said, I can can only talk of my subjec- >tive impressions, and I have not noticed any slowdown until there >are 0 bytes left. But it is hard to tell, because the difference >between 96% and 100% are only 320 MB on a 8 GB partition, and that >space fills up rather fast. > >While you ask - what are the "amounts" of slowdown if a reiserfs >gets more than 96% full? > - Less than 4% percent? (I might not notice that.) > - between 4% and 8%? (I might notice, but I can live with that > easily. Then again, ext3 doesn't seem to have such problems.) > - more than 8%, maybe much more? (That might become annoying. > In that case I believe that ext3 is better for my purposes.) > >You see, I'm not an expert, I'm "just using filesystems". Please >take the mentioned percentages as guesses - depending on the >situation, I might not even notice 10% slowdown... > >Hope that answers your question - does it? > >Happy coding > dirk > > and if you can fit more data onto reiserfs partitions than onto ext3 partitions? Is it a fair comparison to compare at equal percents full? -- Hans