which filesystem?

nehsa · 2003-06-12 21:04:21

I'm just a normal computer user.. what would be a better choice? ext3 or reiserfs?

sarah31 · 2003-06-12 21:28:02

i've used both and can really not tell a difference. reiser has its advantages as does ext3. if i am not mistaken my main box has ext3 and myother test box uses reiser.

nehsa · 2003-06-12 21:29:47

Well.. thanks for the attempt.. guess I'll continue to use reiserfs until someone tells me to stop

Xentac · 2003-06-12 21:39:35

Stop.

Hehehe, did you do it?

Bobonov · 2003-06-13 10:32:51

As far as I know resier is more efficent and give better performance with very large files, so probably is more indicated for server enviroment.
For instance having database storing data on a reiser partition.

Here is an article that can help you

http://www.gurulabs.com/ext3-reiserfs.html

cactus · 2004-05-29 08:38:33

http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html

A very interesting article about testing file systems...

i3839 · 2004-05-29 13:34:48

Bobonov wrote:

As far as I know resier is more efficent and give better performance with very large files, so probably is more indicated for server enviroment.

Wrong, that's XFS. Reiserfs is very good with (a lot) small files. I used to use reiserfs, but now use ext3 with Arch. It doesn't help that Arch is installed on hda4, which is already slower, but it feels much slower than reiserfs on hda3, so I would go for reiserfs instead of ext3. I know that the benchmarks tell that ext3 became much better, but I can't notice it. Probably the best choice is to use XFS with the current Arch, that's a very good fs, or so I heard.

zeppelin · 2004-05-29 16:38:27

I'm ok with ext3 because reiserfs is sponsored by DARPA. [yes I know that MILNET ARPANET an so on were the parents of today's Internet]

but still:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search? … s%20agency

you may also want to try JFS XFS

kakabaratruskia · 2004-05-29 17:18:13

I used ext3 for a long time, because I thought it was more stable (being ext2 based). Since like 6 months or so, I'm using reiser, and I must tell you that it's a lot faster (at least removing files, which is where I noticed ext3 was slow). Everytime I tried to delete a directory with files to build a program, it would take years. Reiser does this in a snap. I haven't had any problems with both FS, and I've suffered abrupt power offs, with both.

i3839 · 2004-05-29 17:59:49

Seems like DARPA sponsored some other good stuff too, I see no reason why being sponsored by DARPA is a bad thing. Thanks to them we have internet, TCP/IP and BSD. Ok, DARPA is a military thing, but that in itself isn't necessarily bad. It are the politicians that decide to go to war most of the time, all sane soldiers would rather stay home ;-). Looking at the facts DARPA seems rather innocent, they just waste plenty of money on interesting, but not too dangerous stuff.

JFS is made by IBM and XFS by SGI. Reiserfs is made by a mathematician and some programmers. DARPA merely sponsors it (not even from the beginning) so that they have enough money to survive, I don't see what's wrong with that. Perhaps you prefer software made by big companies instead of very small companies...

zeppelin · 2004-05-29 18:37:29

i3839 wrote:

Seems like DARPA sponsored some other good stuff too, I see no reason why being sponsored by DARPA is a bad thing. Thanks to them we have internet, TCP/IP and BSD. Ok, DARPA is a military thing, but that in itself isn't necessarily bad. It are the politicians that decide to go to war most of the time, all sane soldiers would rather stay home ;-). Looking at the facts DARPA seems rather innocent, they just waste plenty of money on interesting, but not too dangerous stuff.

I have no access in all DARPA's and US military programs to tell you if they are innocent. It's like telling me that USA went to the Moon because they just liked the idea [and only that]. {which of course is not true}. Or do Americans like to spent money for the cyberspace (only to) offer to science? Afterall I already mentioned some good stuff ARPA did in the past. The guy says "I like both, tell me which one you really think I Should keep".

JFS is made by IBM and XFS by SGI. Reiserfs is made by a mathematician and some programmers. DARPA merely sponsors it (not even from the beginning) so that they have enough money to survive, I don't see what's wrong with that. Perhaps you prefer software made by big companies instead of very small companies...

that merely is everwhere in the site. {but on the other hand in the same site just search for DARPA to see it here and there} No it's not a conspiracy.. But that merely cannot be checked by me and others.
I like the guy who did reiserfs. I remember formating in reiser and reading his funny story about "his lawyer not understand him how he makes money".
btw ext3 was made by Redhat. Redhat is the best company for the FLOSS community im*H*o. [almost everything is GPL, not like SUSE {although that could change because of Novell announcing connector to be GPL and so on..}]
I don't like the fact that IBM has so many SW patents.
I don't have sth to say about SGI cause I never used any of its products.

so for *ME*, it's not a matter of big or small companies. and I don't agree with you on "sane soldiers". Military was built to defend but most of the time just attacks. So just face the reality of what military really is everywhere in the world. {I'm not a crazy pacifist or sth, but sane soldiers are only in the dreams of some people living in another reality}.

about speed now:
# ext3 has multiple journaling modes. It can journal all file data and metadata (data=journal), or it can journal metadata but not file data (data=ordered or data=writeback). When not journaling file data, you can choose to write file system data before metadata (data=ordered; causes all metadata to point to valid data), or not to handle file data specially at all (data=writeback; file system will be consistent, but old data may appear in files after an unclean system shutdown). This gives the administrator the power to make the trade off between speed and file data consistency, and to tune speed for specialized usage patterns.

oh and I don't tortute people that chose reiserfs. Other sane soldiers that also "establish democracy" do that kind of stuff.
have fun around

i3839 · 2004-05-29 20:02:08

I guess our definitions of "sane" are different.

If Reiserfs was made by DARPA you could have a point, but DARPA just started sponsoring Namesys when Namesys was out of money (and as far as I know that was after reiserfs was made, they sponsor reiser4). I would add a big "sponsored by DARPA" label too everywhere I could, if only to show my gratitute for saving my project. Of course it is also for commercial reasons: "If it's good enough for DARPA then it's also good enough for us".

USA went to the moon because the politicians could convince the people that it's fun to do, and because of their big egos they can't stand it that their main enemy is first. Sure, they have their own reasons to really go to the moon, but it's like with Iraq: It doesn't matter what the real reason is (weapon industry and perhaps oil), but with which excuses they convince the others (parlement, congress, public opinion) to want it. Just remember that soldiers aren't the ones that decide what to do (except with military regimes), that's as naive as thinking that the torturing in Iraq is only the soldiers' responsibility and idea.

zeppelin · 2004-05-30 10:06:24

well we merely talk about fs here. But I will reply because we are discussing in a civilized way.

i3839 wrote:

Of course it is also for commercial reasons: "If it's good enough for DARPA then it's also good enough for us".

Well this is a reason why DARPA is not HUGE LETTERS. Because DARPA doesn't want to get blamed or lose its reputation, if reiserfs does sth strange.

USA went to the moon because the politicians could convince the people that it's fun to do, and because of their big egos they can't stand it that their main enemy is first. Sure, they have their own reasons to really go to the moon, but it's like with Iraq: It doesn't matter what the real reason is (weapon industry and perhaps oil), but with which excuses they convince the others (parlement, congress, public opinion) to want it.

I 1000% agree with you here.

Just remember that soldiers aren't the ones that decide what to do (except with military regimes), that's as naive as thinking that the torturing in Iraq is only the soldiers' responsibility and idea.

Hmm, you don't understand what a soldier is supposed to be. [military is only legalized to defend the country, not to do "preemption" that only the President can forsee]
Soldiers in IRAQ think they are establishing democracy and america's ethics and philosophy. They can't see the truth because a) they are not allowed b) and most of them are mentally unable to see it [a lot of the soldiers that are there, have poor education] I can't understand why an american scientist would go and fight in the front, only an ____ would. (i put the ___ ) If soldiers were sane, they would just see that even the president said "there are no WMD in IRAQ" [like he didn't know]. So what are they fighting for? they go for this, then change to the other, then torture iraqis so iraqis can 'easily' distinguish saddam and american occupation. So with all that you understand that they no such thing called 'sane soldiers'.

afterall even bombing innocent people is called a proffesion. I remember those Americans that were captured by IRAQI resistance and the only thing that were saying is: "I was doing my job.."
well iraqis that defend their country are also doing their job.

so everybody is doing the job, and logic is out in the space. Or as some american citizens would say: "I'm ok with everything that happens, at least the bombs dont' get dropped in USA"
So to sum up *MY* thoughts:
a) reiserfs is ok as long as you know who one of the sponsors is
b) sane soldiers. next joke please

And some last thoughs:
I have high respect for american soldiers and citizens that understand that their country is no more "the land of the freedom and democracy" and know who is responsible for this.
Unless you believe that the world with all Bush did is today safer than it was in 9/11. Because I don't. I remember the biggest French newspaper the day after having huge letters in the frontpage saying: "we are all americans now".
and then I remember Bush doing IRAQ and some ____ americans switching names for french fries to fries of "freedom" (that tortures people to express the high ethics of liberty)

In a now famous quote, President Abraham Lincoln was said to have commented to a visitor to the White House in 1865: "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
last post about DARPA and military stuff. he who wants to understand does, the other (for me) is responsible for crimes against humanity that are done now by many sides {also by USA}

ps. I love Woody Allen who is a great american, I like Bob Dylan and so many other americans. [just in case someone thought the opposite]

i3839 · 2004-05-30 13:49:48

I disagree with you that there are no sane soldiers at all. No sane military: Ok, agreed. But soldiers are just humans. Perhaps the average soldier isn't sane, but that doesn't mean that all soldiers are insane. Just keep in mind who made the photos from Iraq public, a disgusted American soldier. Saying that all soldiers are insane is like saying that all people are insane. Because terms like "sane" are always relative, per definition not all humans can be insane.

I don't think that it's really relevant who sponsors Namesys. Firstly, reiserfs is made without any sponsoring at all, so anyway the sponsoring argument counts only for reiser4. Secondly, all code is open source and free, the project isn't started by DARPA, nor has DARPA any fundamental influence (sure, they focus more on security, but that's all). Also DARPA has no commercial intentions, so you don't have to be afraid that they will want patents or other stuff.

zeppelin · 2004-05-30 14:39:05

well Indan, this is really the last post :
military = soldiers
most of them either just do their "job" or they "follow orders" or they don't care as long as they don't get killed. see some documentaries about occupation in IRAQ and you 'll see soldiers talking and you 're going also to understand the low-level of the education Bush make sured they received. [most of them are poor and they don't have the money to follow anything else than military, so they join, there they receive the necessary propaganda, so everything has an excuse. Or as Bush said:
"We tortured hundrerds of Iraqis. But that 's not America"
So forget who ordered and allowed such stuff and move on. just like with WMD. You should be an ___ to think that you go in a country in the other side of earth and go there to fight evil. Especially when we're talking about IRAQ.
See some documentaries and see soldiers talking and you'll get the feeling.
now if you're talking about one in ONE THOUSAND that realizes the truth and refuses to go back to the front then:
a) for the military he's a TRAITOR
b) he doesn't fight for democracy
c) he should be condemned, he should lose respect from everyone and be humiliated
d) a,b,c, in order not for other soldiers to wake up and follow him.

one in a thousand that is the REAL hero of democracy, doesn't make military and soldiers sane. it 's the reality that those people are MINORITY.
The only way out of this, is for american citizens to think what Lincoln was saying and think if they are more safe now than ever before.

SANE soldiers defend their countries. I don't see how tortures, no WMD, and all that can be under the word "DEFEND".
oh and a closing though:
you say Politicians do this, do that, well, politicians NEED OUR vote.
http://x.wieck.com/nytimages/2004/CNI/0 … 114_PV.jpg

Arch Linux

#1 2003-06-12 21:04:21

which filesystem?

#2 2003-06-12 21:28:02

Re: which filesystem?

#3 2003-06-12 21:29:47

Re: which filesystem?

#4 2003-06-12 21:39:35

Re: which filesystem?

#5 2003-06-13 10:32:51

Re: which filesystem?

#6 2004-05-29 08:38:33

Re: which filesystem?

#7 2004-05-29 13:34:48

Re: which filesystem?

#8 2004-05-29 16:38:27

Re: which filesystem?

#9 2004-05-29 17:18:13

Re: which filesystem?

#10 2004-05-29 17:59:49

Re: which filesystem?

#11 2004-05-29 18:37:29

Re: which filesystem?

#12 2004-05-29 20:02:08

Re: which filesystem?

#13 2004-05-30 10:06:24

Re: which filesystem?

#14 2004-05-30 13:49:48

Re: which filesystem?

#15 2004-05-30 14:39:05

Re: which filesystem?

Board footer