Re: reiser4 performance

[David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>]

Hans Reiser wrote:
> 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.....

Me too.  It's fairly subjective on my part, so maybe not.  After all, 
I've gone from lots-of-tiny-partitions to one-huge-root-partition at the 
same time as I switched from v3 to v4, and I know that most of this is 
probably /usr/portage.  With a repacker, Reiser4 would be the best FS 
for /usr/portage -- it's over a hundred thousand shell scripts and text 
files which get updated usually once a day or once a week with rsync -- 
but without a repacker, it's best kept on a separate partition.