On Sunday 21 February 2010 15:59:56 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sunday 21 February 2010 16:16:51 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > On Sonntag 21 Februar 2010, Mick wrote: > > > On 21 February 2010 14:03, Volker Armin Hemmann > > > > > > <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sonntag 21 Februar 2010, Mick wrote: > > > >> I know that some of you have been using reiser4 for some years now. > > > >> How does it compare in performance and reliability in terms to > > > >> reiserfs and xfs? > > > > > > > > they don't even come close in performance. XFS sucks with files who > > > > are not multi megabyte in size. > > > > > > > >> A few years ago I remember there were problems compiling or running > > > >> some applications/libraries on reiser4 - are these problems now > > > >> over? Any gotchas? > > > > > > > > a loooong time ago there was a bug when compiling kde and without > > > > compression. Fixed shortly afterwards, never had a problem again. > > > > > > Thanks Volker for a prompt reply. Is reiser4 still being developed, > > > or is Linux now moving towards ext4? > > > > linux is moving toward btrfs. ext4 is just a stop gap measure. One that > > is only a good alternative if you don't care about your data. > > I know what you meant, and I know what Mick meant, but the question is > nonsensical. > > In terms of filesystems, linux does not "move" anywhere. There are too many > variables, too many options, too many scenarios to consider one fs the > favoured one. > > The correct question is "Is this thing supported?". The answer is that > btrfs, reiser4 and ext4fs are all supported.
I think that on this occasion (new laptop) I will try reiser4 and wave goodbye to reiserfs for now. -- Regards, Mick
