has anyone installed SuSE 10.0 on reiser4?

has anyone installed SuSE 10.0 on reiser4?

[Hans Reiser]

If yes, what steps did you take to do it?

Re: has anyone installed SuSE 10.0 on reiser4?

[Ron Joffe]

On Tuesday 25 October 2005 14:13, Hans Reiser wrote:
> If yes, what steps did you take to do it?

Not quite there yet, but would like to test it out.

Hans, could you give a status of Reiser4. I have seen allot of different 
issues on the maillist, but not a "status" of where the overall project 
stands.

Thanks,

Ron

Re: has anyone installed SuSE 10.0 on reiser4?

[David Masover]

Ron Joffe wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 October 2005 14:13, Hans Reiser wrote:
> 
>>If yes, what steps did you take to do it?
> 
> 
> Not quite there yet, but would like to test it out.
> 
> Hans, could you give a status of Reiser4. I have seen allot of different 
> issues on the maillist, but not a "status" of where the overall project 
> stands.

Status:  Released, for awhile now.

Not for mission-critical apps, as it hasn't been hammered by millions of 
users for a couple of years the way Reiser3 and ext3 have.

Missing a few features, some due to time constraints, some due to 
attempts to get into the mainstream kernel.  Probably all of them will 
get in eventually, it will just take some time.

No idea on kernel inclusion progress.  I've been out of the loop on that 
for some time, due to a fried network card in my mailserver and a 
general lack of interest.

On-disk format is stable, or if it's not, it's backwards-compatible, 
because I haven't formatted for months.

Main performance issues are fsync and the lack of a repacker.

Hans (and others), correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.




For my purposes, it's stable enough for me to use for all of my FSes, 
except NTFS for Windows and HFS+ for OS X.  The biggest problem I've 
ever had since release was related to both hardware and my own 
stupidity, and the undelete feature got me back on my feet pretty 
quickly.  I think the net loss was my copy of Star Wars.

status of reiser4

[Hans Reiser]

Ron Joffe wrote:

>On Tuesday 25 October 2005 14:13, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  
>
>>If yes, what steps did you take to do it?
>>    
>>
>
>Not quite there yet, but would like to test it out.
>
>Hans, could you give a status of Reiser4. I have seen allot of different 
>issues on the maillist, but not a "status" of where the overall project 
>stands.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ron
>
>  
>
vs is working on a major update that he will release any day now.  It
contains many bug fixes.  It should deturkey our latest reiser4 release,
sorry about that guys.

Nate did a mongo benchmark on an older reiser4, -mm1 or some such, and
the surprising thing we discovered was that reiser4 is now more cpu
efficient than ext3 for mongo.  I guess all those memory copy avoiding
balancing algorithms that made the  code so hairy and added so much to
the coding time are now paying off.;-)  We should do some detailed
profiling, and careful benchmark comparisons over time, and see if
memory copies are now the big remaining hogs and reiser4 is being more
space efficient in RAM thus going faster, or if ext3 is just doing
something wasteful.

We should do fresh benchmarks on the latest reiser4 also.

Re: has anyone installed SuSE 10.0 on reiser4?

[Hans Reiser]

David Masover wrote:

> Ron Joffe wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 25 October 2005 14:13, Hans Reiser wrote:
>>
>>> If yes, what steps did you take to do it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not quite there yet, but would like to test it out.
>>
>> Hans, could you give a status of Reiser4. I have seen allot of
>> different issues on the maillist, but not a "status" of where the
>> overall project stands.
>
>
> Status:  Released, for awhile now.
>
> Not for mission-critical apps, as it hasn't been hammered by millions
> of users for a couple of years the way Reiser3 and ext3 have.
>
> Missing a few features, some due to time constraints, some due to
> attempts to get into the mainstream kernel.  Probably all of them will
> get in eventually, it will just take some time.
>
> No idea on kernel inclusion progress.  I've been out of the loop on
> that for some time, due to a fried network card in my mailserver and a
> general lack of interest.
>
> On-disk format is stable, or if it's not, it's backwards-compatible,
> because I haven't formatted for months.
>
> Main performance issues are fsync and the lack of a repacker.
>
> Hans (and others), correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.
>
>
>
>
> For my purposes, it's stable enough for me to use for all of my FSes,
> except NTFS for Windows and HFS+ for OS X.  The biggest problem I've
> ever had since release was related to both hardware and my own
> stupidity, and the undelete feature got me back on my feet pretty
> quickly.  I think the net loss was my copy of Star Wars.
>
>
David is accurate.