From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 May 2001 18:26:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 May 2001 18:26:35 -0400 Received: from idiom.com ([216.240.32.1]:45574 "EHLO idiom.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 6 May 2001 18:26:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3AF5EA03.5D92B2E6@namesys.com> Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:19:16 -0700 From: Hans Reiser X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17-14cl i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dirk Mueller CC: Chris Mason , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] ReiserFS seems to be stable as of 2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <20010504182357.A20214@rotes20.wohnheim.uni-kl.de> <341650000.988994279@tiny> <20010504192348.A11507@rotes20.wohnheim.uni-kl.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dirk Mueller wrote: > > Now consider a good amount of fragmentation because those files get created > over time (weeks, months etc). and you quickly degenerade to a scanning > speed of maybe 10-20 files per second (Athlon 800, IBM 60GB HD with roughly > 35MB/s linear read). It was that horrible that I quickly returned to mbox > for those lists with high amount of traffic. I think only a repacker can properly cure performance problems of slowly accumulating files and directories . September 2002. We can do other things that will gain 5 percent here and there, but the repacker will be the real cure. Hans