From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: reiser4 performance Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:06:54 -0700 Message-ID: <42F7D77E.5080108@namesys.com> References: <200508081409.03814.rmeijer@internet.gr> <42F7B8F4.80101@slaphack.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: <42F7B8F4.80101@slaphack.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Masover Cc: "Raymond A. Meijer" , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Alexander Zarochentcev David Masover wrote: > Raymond A. Meijer wrote: > >> On Monday 8 August 2005 13:32, Hemiplegic Menehune wrote: >> >> >>> Its already as stable as any other fs on my systems and recovers >>> better than most when my battery runs out. Any idea when it will make >>> it into the stable 2.6 kernel? >> >> >> >> If only it had a resizer :( > > > Resizer isn't such a big deal. I can usually find enough backup for > enough of what I want, and I usually get sizes right the first time. > > What I want is the repacker, beacuse performance does steadily degrade > on my Reiser4 systems, eventually getting worse than Reiser3, I am skeptical that it gets worse than V3, unless it is because we haven't put in all the bitmap optimizations we did for V3. I wish I knew how to measure it..... > but not worse than VFAT -- probably because my old FAT partitions are > on old, virus-ridden systems. > > I will stick with Reiser4 for now, and hope the repacker comes soon. > I don't resize that often, but I'd like to repack every couple weeks > or so, and it's not worth it to find that much backup (DVDs) that often. > > >