From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: reiser4 performance Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:23:50 -0500 Message-ID: <42F95726.8040109@slaphack.com> References: <200508081409.03814.rmeijer@internet.gr> <42F7B8F4.80101@slaphack.com> <42F7D77E.5080108@namesys.com> <42F7F28B.7010602@slaphack.com> <42F8008A.6000300@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: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: michael chang Cc: Hans Reiser , "Raymond A. Meijer" , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Alexander Zarochentcev michael chang wrote: > On 8/8/05, David Masover wrote: > >>michael chang wrote: >> >>>On 8/8/05, David Masover wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>I want a resizer (or at least a converter so I can convert to >>>ResierFS, resize, and reconvert back) because I have a dual-boot WinXP >>>and Linux/ReiserFS 3.6 system, which I really want to convert to >>>Reiser4. >> >>That's about my situation. >> >> >>>I don't mind putting XP on a FAT partition so I can squeeze >> >>Dear God, no! Learn to use ntfsresize. It doesn't even require that >>you defragment first -- it will defragment an NTFS partition in order to >>shrink it, then set a flag that tells Windows to run its equivalent of >>fsck on the next boot. > > > But the start of a NTFS parition is fixed. So is that of ResierFS > 3.6, in parted. Besides, when my hard drive is 99% full and all the > files that need to be defragmented are in the MFT area, I really think > FAT is saner. I had that happen to me before. Honest. Wait, are you saying the start of a FAT partition will move? >>I eventually figured out how to resize stuff properly. But, what I'd >>like to be able to do is grow any partition both ways. I don't care so >>much about ntfsresize, since I keep my Windows partition near the front >>of the disk (to boost the speed of Windows -- for Linux, I have Reiser), > > > Obviously, you and I have different opinions to solve the same > problem. Since I try and squeeze around 17 GBs or so of stuff on 2 > partitions on a 20 GB disk, then I have loads of problems. At this > rate, I'm going to put /boot on a ext2 partition at the top, then put > in a Reiser4 partition, then my FAT windows partition. > > FAT seems to defragment easier than NTFS when full. Emphasis on the > full bit. My partitions are always full, never empty. No time. Why? > Because I don't have a CD/DVD burner to offload stuff. That's why. It's probably not polite to say this, but CD/DVD burners are quite cheap these days, as is storage in general. For something like $120 each, I got a pair of 250 gig hard drives. DVD burners are more like $50, plus $20 gets you 100 blank write-once single-layer DVDs. And you do know about the 75% rule, right? >>but I'd like to be able to move the beginning of the FS -- either >>backwards, to grab unused Windows space, or forwards, to give space back >>to Windows. > > > I used to do this. Then I found that Ext2 and ResierFS's beginnings > won't budge. So I just tacked my FAT partition at the end. Who needs > Windows anyways? At the rate it was going, there wouldn't have been a > performance gain putting it at the beginning. I spend most of my time > in Linux. This also makes me think you're saying FAT resizes both ways... >>different heads, there's a striped RAID -- also within reach of a >>desktop power user like myself. > > > Striped RAID only works if you have multiple disks and a decent bus. > I'm stuck on the lowest-end Dell Dimension 3000, with one of the > slowest hard drives in history. And I haven't gotten around to > opening the case... yet. > > Every consumer has different values, and different approaches. Some > are still as stubborn as a mule, and you have to accomidate for them, > or lose them. I don't work here, but believe me, they are trying. It seems they are still trying to get in the mainstream kernel, which means dealing with lots of stubborn people...