AFAIK reiserfs is about keeping files (blocks) in b-trees, and DBMS keep their data in a bunch of files, which are accessed directly (non-sequential access). So I figured that reiserfs would be great for keeping DBMS's data on it.
but, there are some commercial databases which keep their data directly on partitions ( this should be much better then any *fs including reiserfs) and the weird part is that that direct-partition instalation scheme seems to be a little bit slower that fs-based in benchmarks. And this means that I'm missing something here, what is it that I haven't thought about, anyone, any comments on this? regards, Eyck
