> Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the > filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously > bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is > also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means > mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than > ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and > the root partition is only 7% used? > > So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of > being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support > than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose > ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable).
Oh, and according to this benchmark http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
