Re: Question about Reiser4

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Edward Shishkin]

Hello everyone.

>Begin forwarded message:
>
>Date: 23 Apr 2007 21:05:13 +0200
>From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
>To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>Cc: Eric Hopper <hopper@omnifarious.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: Question about Reiser4
>
>
>Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>  
>
>>To get it unstuck we'd need a general push, get people looking at and testing
>>the code, get the vendors to have a serious think about it, etc.  We could do
>>that - it'd require that the namesys people (and I) start making threatening
>>noises about merging it, I guess.
>>    
>>
>
>My impression was that a lot of negative discussion came out of some of the
>user interface inventions in r4 (like sys_reiser4 and the
>new incompatible EA interface). 
>
>  
>

sys_reiser4 and metas interface were removed (current -mm stuff
doesn't contain them).

>I guess a good strategy to get it going would be to extract just
>a "core reiser4" out of it that is just a file system without
>any new interfaces like this.
>
>  
>

I think that current reiser4 is exactly that "core", which responds solely
to VFS. The popular opinion that plugins make more sense in the VFS
is a great delusion, as plugins are entities related to reiser4 disk 
layouts.
There are many aspects where plugin architecture is useful, I tried to
describe one of them -- backward compatibility that was got with
minimal efforts: http://dev.namesys.com/Version4.X.Y
If this needs more comments, then we will proceed the documentation.

>I would expect that reviewing that would be much smoother
>because people could actually concentrate on the technical details.
>
>-Andi
>
>  
>

Other comments:

1. Why Namesys developers aren't presently asking for inclusion?

Because there are unaddressed items in this todo list:
http://pub.namesys.com/Reiser4/ToDo
The main issues here are xattrs and support for blocksize != pagesize.
I think that adding xattrs will take ~1 month of full-time working.
Not sure about blocksize support. Also, the statement about "main
issues" may be too optimistic. Let's try to estimate..

2. Who will maintain this?

Currently there are two namesys employees working mostly on
enthusiasm. Divide them into 2 file systems, plus many people who
really help with fixing problems.

So we need to estimate how dramatic the situation with reiser4 is
(experts are welcome). In the worst case (no funding for this in the
perspective) I hope to devote ~25% of my working time to this
project. Vladimir might want to add something here, but he is sick
for now. By the way, he has its own opinion what part of current
reiser4 should go to mainline (separating tail's support (which
makes things complicated) as special incremental update available
on our website).

Thanks,
Edward.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Andi Kleen]

> Because there are unaddressed items in this todo list:
> http://pub.namesys.com/Reiser4/ToDo
> The main issues here are xattrs and support for blocksize != pagesize.

I would consider both to be optional. We have various file systems
in tree that don't support either (e.g. JFS only supports 4K blocks
and OCFS2 doesn't support xattr) They shouldn't block merging.

> 2. Who will maintain this?
> 
> Currently there are two namesys employees working mostly on
> enthusiasm. Divide them into 2 file systems, plus many people who
> really help with fixing problems.

Merging will probably be a peak of work for the necessary changes,
then hopefully the work will be less once you're in tree because
you don't need to track mainline anymore
(assuming not to many bugs come in from users) 

-Andi

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Edward Shishkin]

Andi Kleen wrote:

>>Because there are unaddressed items in this todo list:
>>http://pub.namesys.com/Reiser4/ToDo
>>The main issues here are xattrs and support for blocksize != pagesize.
>>    
>>
>
>I would consider both to be optional. We have various file systems
>in tree that don't support either (e.g. JFS only supports 4K blocks
>and OCFS2 doesn't support xattr) They shouldn't block merging.
>
>  
>

xattrs also were considered as some guarantee of vendor support.
If possible, then we'll address it as low-priority issue.
Maybe somebody will help.. (xattrs support should go as incremental
update of FPL-subversion for reiser4 kernel module and reiser4progs).

>>2. Who will maintain this?
>>
>>Currently there are two namesys employees working mostly on
>>enthusiasm. Divide them into 2 file systems, plus many people who
>>really help with fixing problems.
>>    
>>
>
>Merging will probably be a peak of work for the necessary changes,
>then hopefully the work will be less once you're in tree because
>you don't need to track mainline anymore
>(assuming not to many bugs come in from users) 
>
>-Andi
>  
>

Hope we survive this, at least such peaks is not something new in
our practice.

Well, gentlemen, so we'll address other items (except #26, 27) and
resume this discussion.

Thanks,
Edward.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Jeff Chua]

On 4/25/07, Edward Shishkin <edward@namesys.com> wrote:

> Hope we survive this, at least such peaks is not something new in
> our practice.
> Well, gentlemen, so we'll address other items (except #26, 27) and
> resume this discussion.

Will you be releasing a patch for 2.6.21-rc7 for those who are keen to
test it? The latest version I can find is
reiser4-for-2.6.19-3.patch.gz.

Reiser4 has great potential and I'll be more than happy to test it.

Thanks,
Jeff.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:49:11 +0800, "Jeff Chua"
<jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com> said:

> Will you be releasing a patch for 2.6.21-rc7 for those who are keen to
> test it? The latest version I can find is reiser4-for-2.6.19-3.patch.gz.
> 
> Reiser4 has great potential and I'll be more than happy to test it.
> 

Laurent Riffard's Reiser4 patch to the default linux-2.6.20 kernel and a
couple of others.

One of these pages contain a link to them:

http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/compile-kernel.htm
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/fs-benchmarks.htm
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Jeff Chua]

On 4/25/07, lkml777@123mail.org <lkml777@123mail.org> wrote:

> Laurent Riffard's Reiser4 patch to the default linux-2.6.20 kernel and a
> couple of others.

Thank you. Got it. Testing it now.

Jeff.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:50:22 +0800, "Jeff Chua"
<jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com> said:
> On 4/25/07, lkml777@123mail.org <lkml777@123mail.org> wrote:
> 
> > Laurent Riffard's Reiser4 patch to the default linux-2.6.20 kernel and a
> > couple of others.
> 
> Thank you. Got it. Testing it now.
> 
> Jeff.

What plugins etc are you looking at?
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Jeff Chua]

On 4/26/07, lkml777@123mail.org <lkml777@123mail.org> wrote:
>
> What plugins etc are you looking at?

None. Just want vanilla reiser4 as I've many small files to deal with.

Jeff.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:49:11 +0800, "Jeff Chua"
<jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com> said:
> 
> Reiser4 has great potential and I'll be more than happy to test it.
> 
Yeah,... let us know the details of your testing.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                          wherever you are

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Jeff Chua]

On 4/26/07, lkml777@123mail.org <lkml777@123mail.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:49:11 +0800, "Jeff Chua"
> <jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com> said:
> >
> > Reiser4 has great potential and I'll be more than happy to test it.
> >
> Yeah,... let us know the details of your testing.

Ok, got reiser4 running on 1 full 250GB partition on Linux-2.6.21-rc7,
and up running reiser4 on another 2 systems. Have done a lot copy and
have not run into an problem since last night.

I'll try it with 2.6.21 soon.

What would be nice is to get grub2 to boot up on the reiser4
partition. I've seen patch for grub, but not for grub2.

I planning to deploy this for squid caching soon.

Thanks,
Jeff.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Jeff Chua]

> I'll try it with 2.6.21 soon.

Just to inform you that the reiserfs4 patch cleanly on 2.6.21 and
working well. I've not encountered any problem so far.

Thanks,
Jeff.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

> Just to inform you that the reiserfs4 patch cleanly on 2.6.21 and
> working well. I've not encountered any problem so far.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff.

Hi Jeff, could you outline the procedure that YOU used to get Reiser4
installed and running.

Thanks a million. 
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

Re: Question about Reiser4 (how to boot it?)

[lkml777]

Thanks, that is certainly helpful, but that only mounts one directory
(partition) as Reiser4.

This I have already done.

I was more interested in how to have a whole partition dedicated to
Reiser4 and being able to boot into it.

By any chance did you do that?


On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:37:05 +0800, "Jeff Chua"
<jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com> said:
> On 4/27/07, lkml777@123mail.org <lkml777@123mail.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jeff, could you outline the procedure that YOU used to get Reiser4
> > installed and running.
> 
> Pretty much the same as the steps from   ...
>      http://linuxhelp.150m.com/installs/compile-kernel.htm
> 
> cd /usr/src
> tar --use=bzip2 -xpf linux-2.6.21.tar.bz2
> ln -nsf linux-2.6.21 linux
> cd /usr/src/linux
> bzip2 -d -c /tmp/reiser4-for-2.6.20.patch.bz2 | patch -p1
> # copy your old .config here
> make menuconfig
>     File systems  --->
>           <*> Reiser4 (EXPERIMENTAL)
> make
> make modules_install
> # copy ./i386/boot/bzImage to the boot directory
> # reboot
> 
> 
> # download, compile and install ...
>           libaal-1.0.5.tar.gz
>           reiser4progs-1.0.6.tar.gz
> 
> I got them from  ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4progs/
> 
> Take an unused partition, and create reiser4fs on it...
> 
> mkfs.reiser4 /dev/sda8
> mount /dev/sda8 /mnt
> 
> Or you may want to try it on a loop device ...
> 
> dd if=/dev/zero  of=disk1  bs=1024k count=100
> mkfs.reiser4 -yf disk1
> mount -o loop disk1 /u0
> 
> Here's an entry in /etc/fstab
>     /dev/sda8    /u3    reiser4    noatime      0 0
> 
> 
> I hope this is good enough to get you started.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different…

Re: Question about Reiser4 (how to boot it?)

[Jeff Chua]

On 4/28/07, lkml777@123mail.org <lkml777@123mail.org> wrote:
> Thanks, that is certainly helpful, but that only mounts one directory
> (partition) as Reiser4.
>
> This I have already done.
>
> I was more interested in how to have a whole partition dedicated to
> Reiser4 and being able to boot into it.

Not able to boot a whole partition with grub2. I've seen patch for
grub ... ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiser4progs/grub-0.97-reiser4-20050808.tar.gz

But I since I'm using grub2, it's not possible to boot directly into
reiser4. I'm only use the whole 250GB partition on my 2nd hard disk
for testing.

I'm as interested as you in looking for grub2 to boot directly.
Currently, I've to create a small ext2 partition for grub2.

Jeff.

Re: Question about Reiser4 (how to boot it?)

[lkml777]

Hi Jeff, it seems that lkml has contacted both of my email accounts and
cripped them.

I can no longer recieve email from lkml on this account.

I can neither recieve or send email to lkml from my other account.

They have also just deleted the 4 emails I sent to lkml from the page
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/30/

This included one to you.

In case you didn't get it,... here it is again.

-----------

I used GRUB and the kernel and initrd from a separate partition to boot
a Reiser4 installation.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin

Re: Question about Reiser4 (how to boot it?)

[Andi Kleen]

> By any chance did you do that?

It will likely work with lilo -- it is file system independent as 
long as the file system implements the IOC_UNPACK ioctl, which
r4 seems to.

-Andi

Re: Question about Reiser4 (how to boot it?)

[lkml777]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:29:28 +0200, "Andi Kleen" <andi@firstfloor.org>
said:
> > By any chance did you do that?
> 
> It will likely work with lilo -- it is file system independent as 
> long as the file system implements the IOC_UNPACK ioctl, which
> r4 seems to.
> 
> -Andi

I used a kernel and initrd transfered to an ext3 partition to boot the
reiser4 partition.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:03:12 +0400, "Edward Shishkin"
<edward@namesys.com> said:
> lkml777@123mail.org wrote:
> 
> >
> >As I understand it, the default Reiser4 DOES NOT USE any compression at
> >all, not even tail compression,
> >
> 
> ^tail compression^tail conversion
> Reiser4 does use tail conversion by default.
> 
> > but saves space by eliminating block
> >alignment wastage (tail compression is an option).
> >
> >So lets LOSE the statistics that involve compression. The results now
> >look like this:
> >
> >.-------------------------.
> >| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
> >| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
> >.-------------------------.
> >|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
> >|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
> >|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
> >|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
> >|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
> >|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
> >|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
> >|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
> >|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
> >.-------------------------.
> >
> >These results are still EXTREMELY GOOD for REISER4.
> >  
> >
> 
> Everything is not so simple in the science of testing..
> Would you please change direction of your activity to stressing
> instead of benchmarking? Caught oopses would have great value..
> OK?
> 
> Regards,
> Edward.
> 

Tail conversion is NOT compression,....

So what exactly is your point?

By "tail compression" I mean plugin ctail40, but since I was never able
to get it to work, maybe its not tail compression at all.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:00:46 -0700, "Eric Hopper"
> <hopper@omnifarious.org> said:

> I did.  That whole thread is some guy spouting off a ludicrous Bonnie++
> benchmark showing that compressing long strings of 0s results in things
> taking up very little space and being very fast.

I think you are deliberately being stupid here.

You are claiming that REISER4's good speed results when using
compression actually has a simple explanation and THEREFORE all good
result for the filesystem, even those results that have nothing to do
with compression, are negated.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

Your conclusion is a total travesty of logic.

As I understand it, the default Reiser4 DOES NOT USE any compression at
all, not even tail compression, but saves space by eliminating block
alignment wastage (tail compression is an option).

So lets LOSE the statistics that involve compression. The results now
look like this:

.-------------------------.
| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
.-------------------------.
|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
.-------------------------.

These results are still EXTREMELY GOOD for REISER4.

These results still say that Reiser4 is a truly remarkable filesystem,
as stated in:

http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/fs-benchmarks.htm

So why do I see an anti-Reiser religion, in all that you people say.

You, concentrate on the fact that bonnie++'s use of files that are
mainly zeroes, will make the results using compression less good than
they are.

I can't see anywhere where this has been denied.

In fact the other set of statistics that you just ignore, states that in
more realistic situations, the compression speedup is slightly negative.

What is wrong here, is:

You say that the Bonnie++ tests using compression are subject to
interpretation. No argument here.
You ignore the tests that confirm your statement. You are clearly not
interested in the actual results or their interpretation.
You, by some incredibly twisted "logic" the state that Reiser4 is
therefore not good, even though it is clearly the best filesystem when
NOT using compression.

This of course is completely deceitful "logic".

That the speed advantage from compression would be small is clear from
the OTHER data that you ignore, namely:

.-------------------------------------------------.
|File         |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar  |Unzip| Del |
|System       |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 |
|Type         | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig |
.-------------------------------------------------.
|REISER4 lzo  | 278 | 138 |  56 |  80 |  34 |  84 |
|REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 |  68 |  83 |  48 |  70 |
|REISER4      | 692 | 148 |  55 |  67 |  25 |  56 |
|EXT4         | 816 | 174 |  70 |  74 |  42 |  50 |
.-------------------------------------------------.


> So, the speed increase with compression (on very compressible kernel sources) is slightly negative,
> 
> but the speed is still comparable to that of EXT4.
> 
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:00:46 -0700, "Eric Hopper"
> > <hopper@omnifarious.org> said:
> >
> > > I know that this whole effort has been put in disarray by the
> > > prosecution of Hans Reiser, but I'm curious as to its status. Is
> > > Reiser4 going to be going into the Linus kernel anytime soon? Is there
> > > somewhere I should be looking to find this out without wasting bandwidth
> > > here?
> >
> > There was a thread the other day, that talked about Reiser4.
> >
> > It took a while but I have found it (actually two)
> >
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/5/360
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/9/4
> >
> > You may want to check them out.
> 
> I did.  That whole thread is some guy spouting off a ludicrous Bonnie++
> benchmark showing that compressing long strings of 0s results in things
> taking up very little space and being very fast.
> 
> Such things will produce lots of flames and no useful information
> whatsoever as is evinced by the half conspiracy theory, half truth the
> thread degenerated into in the second message you linked to.
> 
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Eric M. Hopper]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2074 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 17:12 -0700, lkml777@123mail.org wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:00:46 -0700, "Eric Hopper"
> > <hopper@omnifarious.org> said:
> 
> > I did.  That whole thread is some guy spouting off a ludicrous Bonnie++
> > benchmark showing that compressing long strings of 0s results in things
> > taking up very little space and being very fast.
> 
> I think you are deliberately being stupid here.
> 
> You are claiming that REISER4's good speed results when using
> compression actually has a simple explanation and THEREFORE all good
> result for the filesystem, even those results that have nothing to do
> with compression, are negated.

I am claiming nothing of the sort.  You are assuming that I'm claiming
this for some random reason.  And in so doing, you are hurting your
cause and mine.

If you would bother to read, I really like the ideas in Reiser4, and I
definitely think it has distinct performance advantages in some much
more common situations than the highly flawed benchmark with Bonnie++
and compression.  I would like it included in the mainline kernel.  In
arguing with me, you are arguing against someone who (as far as I can
tell) you actually share a cause with.

But, bringing in benchmarks that have serious flaws as a general
use-case and attempting to use them as an argument does way more to hurt
your cause than help.  It brands you as a crackpot and a crank (note
that I am not calling you either of those things) and that impression
will also bleed off onto all those who share an association with you by
way of sharing some of your opinions.

Additionally, repeatedly posting something everybody has already read
and ranting about how everybody is ignoring all the good parts of it and
focusing on the bad parts makes things even worse.

I will not respond to you again.  Please stop jumping into discussions
about Reiser4.  I would like it included in the mainline kernel, and you
are hurting that cause.

-- 
Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.org  http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 185 bytes --]

Re: Question about Reiser4

[Edward Shishkin]

lkml777@123mail.org wrote:

>
>As I understand it, the default Reiser4 DOES NOT USE any compression at
>all, not even tail compression,
>

^tail compression^tail conversion
Reiser4 does use tail conversion by default.

> but saves space by eliminating block
>alignment wastage (tail compression is an option).
>
>So lets LOSE the statistics that involve compression. The results now
>look like this:
>
>.-------------------------.
>| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
>| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
>.-------------------------.
>|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
>|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
>|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
>|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
>|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
>|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
>|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
>|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
>|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
>.-------------------------.
>
>These results are still EXTREMELY GOOD for REISER4.
>  
>

Everything is not so simple in the science of testing..
Would you please change direction of your activity to stressing
instead of benchmarking? Caught oopses would have great value..
OK?

Regards,
Edward.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

Hello Eric, anyone home?

> On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 17:12 -0700, lkml777@123mail.org wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:00:46 -0700, "Eric Hopper"
> > > <hopper@omnifarious.org> said:
> > 
> > > I did.  That whole thread is some guy spouting off a ludicrous Bonnie++
> > > benchmark showing that compressing long strings of 0s results in things
> > > taking up very little space and being very fast.
> > 
> > I think you are deliberately being stupid here.
> > 
> > You are claiming that REISER4's good speed results when using
> > compression actually has a simple explanation and THEREFORE all good
> > result for the filesystem, even those results that have nothing to do
> > with compression, are negated.
> 
> I am claiming nothing of the sort. You are assuming that I'm claiming
> this for some random reason.  And in so doing, you are hurting your
> cause and mine.

Yes you are. Your claim may have only been implicit, but it was also
VERY clear.

You complain that Reiser4's excellent speed results when using
compression might have a simple explanation. 

You then implicitly write off the whole set of results on this basis,
which is just plain dishonest.

You could have pointed out that most of the results did NOT use
compression, but instead you just ignored them.

You could have asked by how much, bonnie++'s use of files that are
mainly zeroes, affected the excellent speeds.

But you didn't, because you weren't really interested.

You ignored about 90% of the benchmarks and concentrated on a very small
area that you could raise a question about.

That is not someone looking for the truth. That is a propagandist
working against Reiser4.

Your conclusion was that of someone who is trying to destroy Reiser4,
while PRETENDING to support it.

Well. At least that is what it looks like to me.

> and ranting about how everybody is ignoring all the good parts of it and
> focusing on the bad parts makes things even worse.

Yes YOU are ignoring all the good parts of it and focusing on the (well
not bad parts but) parts that seem too good to be true.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:03:12 +0400, "Edward Shishkin"
<edward@namesys.com> said:
> lkml777@123mail.org wrote:
> 
> >
> >As I understand it, the default Reiser4 DOES NOT USE any compression at
> >all, not even tail compression,
> >
> 
> ^tail compression^tail conversion
> Reiser4 does use tail conversion by default.
> 
> > but saves space by eliminating block
> >alignment wastage (tail compression is an option).
> >
> >So lets LOSE the statistics that involve compression. The results now
> >look like this:
> >
> >.-------------------------.
> >| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
> >| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
> >.-------------------------.
> >|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
> >|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
> >|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
> >|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
> >|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
> >|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
> >|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
> >|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
> >|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
> >.-------------------------.
> >
> >These results are still EXTREMELY GOOD for REISER4.
> >  
> >
> 
> Everything is not so simple in the science of testing..
> Would you please change direction of your activity to stressing
> instead of benchmarking? Caught oopses would have great value..
> OK?
> 
> Regards,
> Edward.
> 

Tail conversion is NOT compression,....

So what exactly is your point?

By "tail compression" I mean plugin ctail40, but since I was never able
to get it to work, maybe its not tail compression at all.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

OOn Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:03:12 +0400, "Edward Shishkin"
<edward@namesys.com> said:
> lkml777@123mail.org wrote:
> 
> >
> >As I understand it, the default Reiser4 DOES NOT USE any compression at
> >all, not even tail compression,
> >
> 
> ^tail compression^tail conversion
> Reiser4 does use tail conversion by default.
> 
> > but saves space by eliminating block
> >alignment wastage (tail compression is an option).
> >
> >So lets LOSE the statistics that involve compression. The results now
> >look like this:
> >
> >.-------------------------.
> >| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
> >| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
> >.-------------------------.
> >|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
> >|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
> >|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
> >|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
> >|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
> >|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
> >|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
> >|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
> >|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
> >.-------------------------.
> >
> >These results are still EXTREMELY GOOD for REISER4.
> >  
> >
> 
> Everything is not so simple in the science of testing..
> Would you please change direction of your activity to stressing
> instead of benchmarking? Caught oopses would have great value..
> OK?
> 
> Regards,
> Edward.
> 

Tail conversion is NOT compression,....

So what exactly is your point?

By "tail compression" I mean plugin ctail40, but since I was never able
to get it to work, maybe its not tail compression at all.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...

Re: Question about Reiser4

[lkml777]

Hi Edward, it seems that lkml has contacted both of my email accounts
and cripped them.

I can no longer recieve email from lkml on this account.

I can neither recieve or send email to lkml from my other account.

They have also just deleted the 4 emails I sent to lkml from the page
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/30/

This included one to you.

In case you didn't get it,... here it is again.

(Since you still haven't answered this one).

-----------------

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:03:12 +0400, "Edward Shishkin"
<edward@namesys.com> said:
> lkml777@123mail.org wrote:
> 
> >
> >As I understand it, the default Reiser4 DOES NOT USE any compression at
> >all, not even tail compression,
> >
> 
> ^tail compression^tail conversion
> Reiser4 does use tail conversion by default.
> 
> > but saves space by eliminating block
> >alignment wastage (tail compression is an option).
> >
> >So lets LOSE the statistics that involve compression. The results now
> >look like this:
> >
> >.-------------------------.
> >| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
> >| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
> >.-------------------------.
> >|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
> >|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
> >|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
> >|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
> >|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
> >|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
> >|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
> >|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
> >|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
> >.-------------------------.
> >
> >These results are still EXTREMELY GOOD for REISER4.
> >  
> >
> 
> Everything is not so simple in the science of testing..
> Would you please change direction of your activity to stressing
> instead of benchmarking? Caught oopses would have great value..
> OK?
> 
> Regards,
> Edward.
> 

Tail conversion is NOT compression,....

So what exactly is your point?

By "tail compression" I mean plugin ctail40, but since I was never able
to get it to work, maybe its not tail compression at all.
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow