I did not say there is something wrong about published reports. I often read them. (Who doesn't?) However, there are no trustworthy reports on this topic yet, since Btrfs is unfinished. Let's see some examples:(1) http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_ext4_btrfs&num=1My little few yen in this massacre: Phoronix usually compares apples with oranges and pigs with candies. So be careful.
Nobody said one should blindly trust Phoronix. ;-) In fact I clearly said the contrary. I mentioned the famous example of a totally absurd "benchmark" that used crippled and crashing code from the ZEN patchset to benchmark Reiser4.
Disclaimer: I use Reiser4A "Killer FS"™. :-)
I had been using Reiser4 for quite a long time before Hans Reiser was convicted for the murder of his wife. There was absolutely no (objective technical) reason to make a change afterwards. :-) As far as speed is concerned, Reiser4 really is a "Killer FS" (in a very positive sense). It is now maintained by Edward Shishkin, a former Namesys employee. Patches are available for each kernel version. (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/edward/reiser4/reiser4-for-2.6/) Admittedly, with the advent of Ext4 and Btrfs, Reiser4 is not so "brilliant" any more. Reiser4 could have been a much larger project with many features known from today's ZFS/Btrfs (encryption, compression and perhaps even snapshots and subvolumes), but long disputes around kernel integration and the events around Hans Reiser blocked the whole effort and Reiser4 lost its advantage. Andrej
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
