On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 at 16:27, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
> Ok, I'll bite, I use ReiserFS and I'm new to this list.
Aha! Another target for conversion. Just kidding. I'm also new to the list
(especially relative to the real gurus like Eric, Nathan, Steve or Seth,
among others), but not quite as new as you I guess. ;>
I started out using ReiserFS before XFS because ReiserFS was around in the
Linux scene before XFS. I tested XFS when it first got out, wasn't
satisfied by the speed (because I felt the significant delete hit), and
reverted to ReiserFS. This was with my old server.
I got a new server after that and had to decide which filesystem to use. I
chose XFS for most everything except my boot partition which uses ext2 and
my Squid cache which uses ReiserFS (because ReiserFS has phenomenal delete
> What are the technical reasons not to use ReiserFS?
There are a number, and these all depend on your usage patterns. For
starters you may want to check the mongo.pl benchmarks in the Namesys
(ReiserFS) webpage. ReiserFS is great for small files but you will note
that except for delete performance, XFS will start beating ReiserFS at
around 10000 bytes. That's rougly 10KB, and for a number of systems (like
my Samba+NFS data partition), that's small enough.
XFS is stable with NFS. I've done relatively small stress tests and know
that for loads beyond our typical here, XFS+NFS is stable. Others like Dan
Yocum, who is also on the list, I believe have done even more XFS+NFS
stress testing. ReiserFS is supposed to be approaching stability with NFS,
XFS has stuff like ACLs, and you'll need to wait for Reiser4 to get that.
I made a small talk for the local Linux10 celebrations. If you're
interested you can go to
<http://jijo.leathercollection.ph/linux10/filesystems/> to take a look at
Federico Sevilla III :: jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Network Administrator :: The Leather Collection, Inc.
GnuPG Key: <http://jijo.leathercollection.ph/jijo.gpg>