Re: Again, some bad Reiser4 (ReiserFS) 'reviews'

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Dieter Nützel wrote:

>http://rufus.hackish.org/wiki/2.6FileSystemBenchmarks
>
>Greetings,
>	Dieter
>
>
>  
>
I think he has an fsync intensive workload, which reiser4 is not good at 
because we haven't bothered with it yet, and we care more about maturing 
the atomic functionality.  I have no idea what ccache does with the fs.  
Does it use fsync?

How he got tar to be slow is hard to understand, I don't remember seeing 
a slow tar using reiser4, does anyone else?  I am guessing he created 
the tarball using ext2, and didn't know that readdir order matters and 
affects the tarball, and that he should create it on the filesystem 
being benchmarked.  Maybe the tarball ordering also affects subsequent 
compiles, I don't know.

zam, would you confirm that the fibration plugin is our current default 
plugin?

Hans