Quoting Shaul Karl, from the post of Tue, 30 Mar: > My hasty, non scientific, calls for comments conclusion is that the > overhead of the Reiser fs is too high for what I have tried. Another > thought of the hasty type is whether a file system should act as a data > base. Aren't small, efficient tools for well defined tasks better then > more complicated tools? Other then the long delay on boot, isn't ext2 a > reasonable fs? Debian's installer suggests ext2, ext3, Reiser, xfs and > jfs to choose from.
Reiser was never recommended as a general "fs for anything", it's mainly recommended for large filesystems, since the overhead decreases fast and does not remain a constant precentage. I use it for filesystems from 2G to 120G and it's more efficiant than any of the others. for less than that I'd probably stick to ext3 as well. -- Gourmet eater Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/ ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
