On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kerin Millar <kerfra...@fastmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote: >>> >>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ... >>> >>> >>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for >>> /var, >>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage >>> and >>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all. >> >> >> >> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself >> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will >> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the >> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle >> >> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and >> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs >> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in >> real terms there is effectively no-one >> >> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and >> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should >> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk. > > > Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL (big > kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated compromise > when the time came to eliminate the BKL: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423 > > Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was > addressed I do not know. > > In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail packing. > Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue that was > supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4). > > In general, I would recommend ext4 or xfs as the go-to filesystems these > days. > > --Kerin >
XFS is honestly looking mighty good if your host has 8 cores or more: http://lwn.net/Articles/476263/ If data corruption is *totally* not acceptable, and if you have more than one disks of similar sizes, ZFS might even be more suitable. Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
