From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: reiser4 performance Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:02:19 -0500 Message-ID: <42F7F28B.7010602@slaphack.com> References: <200508081409.03814.rmeijer@internet.gr> <42F7B8F4.80101@slaphack.com> <42F7D77E.5080108@namesys.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: <42F7D77E.5080108@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hans Reiser Cc: "Raymond A. Meijer" , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Alexander Zarochentcev 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.