From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: michael chang Subject: Re: reiser4 performance Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:16:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200508081409.03814.rmeijer@internet.gr> <42F7B8F4.80101@slaphack.com> <42F7D77E.5080108@namesys.com> <42F7F28B.7010602@slaphack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <42F7F28B.7010602@slaphack.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: David Masover Cc: Hans Reiser , "Raymond A. Meijer" , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Alexander Zarochentcev 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. I don't mind putting XP on a FAT partition so I can squeeze it as much as necessary, but only if I can resize my Resier4 partition as necessary (I don't mind putting at the top of my HD though, atm...) > >>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..... >=20 > Me too. It's fairly subjective on my part, so maybe not. After all, Is there a way to count the number of jumps in a file, and the distance of those jumps when reading a file? Could the sum or product of these be some sort of measure of performance (provided that putting part of a file at the beginning and another part at the end of a disk don't actually improve performance in some twisted way due to using different heads simultaneously or something)? > 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 It'd be the best FS for just about anyone who likes to tinker, or anyone with a mid-range system that has a really slow, slow hard drive. My newest hard drive also happens to be my slowest... *sigh* > but without a repacker, it's best kept on a separate partition. So are many things, it seems. Sadly. --=20 ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable.