From: Lexington Luthor <lexington.luthor@gmail.com>
To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com
Subject: Re: journal size reiserfs vs reiser4
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:13:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <df6uqb$bkf$1@sea.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050901150507.3d6f53c7@SiRiUS.home>
Thomas Kuther wrote:
> Ah OK, that computes. So i'll go with reiserfs on that big one (11 GB
> for internal stuff is too much i have to admit).
>
> Thanks!
> Tom
Other filesystems will also consume space (most of them, more so than
reiserfs or reiser4), they will just allocate it incrementally with the
data. The metadata handling in reiser4 is designed differently, so it
allocated during mkfs.
Ext3 will use more space than reiser4 for the same data. reiserfs with
tail packing will use the least space (of all the filesystems in linux),
but will be slower than reiser4.
I would suggest reiser4 if speed is important, or XFS if data safety is
important (since r4 is still experimental). Both of them will use around
5-8% of the disk (depending on the number of files etc.), which is less
than most filesystems.
LL
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-01 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-01 11:46 journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Thomas Kuther
2005-09-01 12:48 ` Thomas Kuther
2005-09-01 12:53 ` Vladimir V. Saveliev
2005-09-01 13:03 ` PFC
2005-09-01 13:12 ` Thomas Kuther
2005-09-01 13:05 ` Thomas Kuther
2005-09-01 13:07 ` Peter Staubach
2005-09-01 13:37 ` Vladimir V. Saveliev
2005-09-01 15:25 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-01 16:06 ` Peter Staubach
2005-09-01 16:23 ` Marcel Hilzinger
2005-09-01 17:03 ` David Masover
2005-09-01 17:27 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-01 17:36 ` Peter Staubach
2005-09-01 17:59 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-01 18:14 ` Peter Staubach
2005-09-01 22:17 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-02 2:28 ` michael chang
2005-09-02 6:34 ` Vladimir V. Saveliev
2005-09-02 7:19 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-02 7:39 ` PFC
2005-09-02 16:02 ` michael chang
2005-09-02 17:37 ` Łukasz Mierzwa
2005-09-02 18:08 ` Gregory Maxwell
2005-09-02 21:29 ` Matt Stegman
2005-09-04 1:04 ` michael chang
2005-09-04 2:38 ` David Masover
2005-09-04 3:48 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-04 9:29 ` Clemens Eisserer
2005-09-04 16:42 ` David Masover
2005-09-05 12:16 ` michael chang
2005-09-05 18:20 ` David Masover
2005-09-05 21:24 ` michael chang
2005-09-06 13:59 ` Tom Vier
2005-09-06 20:32 ` michael chang
2005-09-06 20:45 ` David Masover
2005-09-06 20:47 ` michael chang
2005-09-06 21:03 ` David Masover
2005-09-06 23:10 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-07 2:48 ` Gregory Maxwell
2005-09-07 23:58 ` reiser4 merge status Hans Reiser
2005-09-08 0:08 ` Andrew Morton
2005-09-06 20:36 ` journal size reiserfs vs reiser4 Gregory Maxwell
2005-09-06 20:41 ` michael chang
2005-09-07 14:01 ` Tom Vier
2005-09-07 20:18 ` michael chang
2005-09-05 12:14 ` michael chang
2005-09-03 10:08 ` Sander
2005-09-03 11:34 ` Pierre Etchemaïté
2005-09-04 0:15 ` Hans Reiser
2005-09-01 13:13 ` Marcel Hilzinger
2005-09-01 13:15 ` Thomas Kuther
2005-09-01 14:08 ` michael chang
2005-09-01 13:13 ` Lexington Luthor [this message]
2005-09-01 13:28 ` Thomas Kuther
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='df6uqb$bkf$1@sea.gmane.org' \
--to=lexington.luthor@gmail.com \
--cc=reiserfs-list@namesys.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.