From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Juergen Starek <quiterigorouslyfilteredusenetaccount@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: ReiserFS slow, need help diagnosing
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:05:24 +0200
Message-ID: <e629qu$e5$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <e61aht$7kf$1@sea.gmane.org> <1149516737.6402.120.camel@tribesman.namesys.com> <e61f4n$p6b$1@sea.gmane.org> <1149520582.6402.134.camel@tribesman.namesys.com> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606051732110.25988@alpha.polcom.net> <1149522884.6402.144.camel@tribesman.namesys.com> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606051805300.25988@alpha.polcom.net> <44845A51.9030504@namesys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-28738-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
To: reiserfs-list@namesys.com

Hans Reiser schrieb:

>>> So, I guess that reiser4 will be better than reiserfs, but
>>> still worse than ext[23]. Would you verify this guess it please?
>>
> I wouild not assume this.  There is a huge difference with respect to
> this usage pattern between reiser4 and reiser3, it should dramatically
> improve.  I don't know if we will be better or worse than ext3, it could
> be either, best to measure it.

Well, thanks to all of you for helping me with this. Once I get my hands
on a test system (and have enough free time), I'll try to test various
file systems with this scenario.

Regards,

  J=FCrgen