From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Schenkewitz Subject: Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:54:17 +0100 Message-ID: <3E4A35E9.1585BB5@interface-ag.com> References: <93F527C91A6ED411AFE10050040665D0049C06D5@corpusmx1.us.dg.com> <3E4A266E.2A258472@interface-ag.com> <3E4A28F8.2030506@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Reiserfs List Hi Hans, Hans Reiser schrieb: > > 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? That's what I'm looking for! > Is it a fair comparison to compare at equal percents full? Considered that way: No. Comparison should be between absolute bytes I can put on a reiser-filesystem against an ext3-filesystem while the partition sizes are equal. Hm. Please excuse me if this is a FAQ: Can you give me a hint where to find such a comparison? To put it in other words: How much more bytes can I put on a reiser-fs compared to an ext3-fs when the partition sizes are equal? But even then: If I have more space available, I will happily use it, so even if I can put 500 MB more on it, I will manage to fill it up - what will happen then? Thanks for reading & answering (also in advance :-)) dirk -- Dirk Schenkewitz InterFace AG fon: +49 (0)89 / 610 49 - 126 Leipziger Str. 16 fax: +49 (0)89 / 610 49 - 83 D-82008 Unterhaching http://www.interface-ag.de mailto:dirk.schenkewitz@interface-ag.de