On Tuesday 27 September 2005 01:44 pm, Pete Jewell wrote: > However, ReiserFS is *much* more efficient when you have thousands of > files in one directory, because it uses a hashing algorithm to determine > where the required file is (or starts) in the filesystem. This is > something I know about (hashing) based on my experience with Pick > database systems, which also use hashing and are incredibly fast at > keyed record retrieval (as well as entire file/table traversal). > > I've used ReiserFS in the past mainly for it's journalling capability, > which at the time was more complete than ext3's (this was on a RH6.2 > system with the 2.4.x series kernels). As my customers at the time were > very likely to simply switch the system off (for any reason, including > not knowing how a particular application works that they'd wandered > into), this feature saw a lot of (successful) use!
Thanks to Derek, Hendrik, and Pete for the replies! Is there a chance that the hash for a ReiserFS can become corrupted like the index for a mbox file can be? Or maybe I should ask it differently, because presumably something can happen to make it corrupted--does Reisers have some better error detection / correction / recovery for the hash than is typical of an index for an mbox file? (Maybe I need to go read up on Reiser, and join a Reiser list. ;-) Randy Kramer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
