Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

Paingiver · 2009-05-12 01:16:35

As the title tells...

mikesd · 2009-05-12 01:41:44

I used to use reiserfs v3 I think many years ago but haven't used either version of reiserfs for a long time.

As far as I know the whole Hans/Nina situation has left reiserfs with an uncertain future. That's the impression I have anyway. That's why I have not looked at it.

Xyne · 2009-05-12 02:11:13

Well, when I choose a filesystem I look at the various features and limitations that each one has to offer. I consider in detail the intended use and I try to gauge which filesystem is best adapted to that use.

I usually end up shortlisting 3 or 4 which come close to meeting all of my ideal requirements and then I spend time weighing the pros and cons of the full feature set, in particular comparing those defining differences that each one presents and which ultimately makes each one unique.

While each file system has presented certain innovations over time, Hans Reiser alone had the foresight to create a unique feature which truly sets his filesystem apart from the others and which time and time again ends up being the deciding factor when push comes to shove. As this Wikipedia article clearly shows, ReiserFS is the only available file system that murders your wife. When it's all said and done, this outstanding feature makes the biggest difference in day to day performance and reliability and it would be unthinkable to run a mission-critical system without it. It really leaves all those other file systems in the dust.

jwcxz · 2009-05-12 02:15:05

Reiser4 was a good, stable filesystem. I used it on my old desktop box. However, after the murder, I realized that its support would dwindle to nothing eventually, especially considering that the kernel maintainers were never interested in including it in the first place (for whatever reasons, political or technical... we probably shouldn't get into that here...). On a box where I'd never upgrade the kernel, I would use Reiser4. But there's no way I'm going to use it on an Arch box where the kernel is always the latest version.

Reiser3 is good, but not anywhere nearly as good as Reiser4 in terms of all-around speed. It is quite good with small files though; I use it on virtual hosts that primarily store temporary scripts and such. pacman -Syu is blazingly fast on a Reiser3 system vs a XFS system, even when XFS has been tweaked to use more sane log file sizes.

Right now I'm using XFS on my main computer (XPS M1330) and I really miss the speed at which both Reiser3 and Reiser4 could operate at with small files. I'm not too sure what I should do for the box I'm building this summer; maybe I'll use Reiser3 for /var and /tmp or something.

artiom · 2009-05-12 09:17:01

I use Reiser3 for my / (which includes /var and /tmp) for performance with the small files. Reiser3 is already in the kernel and in my knowledge there is no major or minor problem with it. IMHO the support is secondary for this stage of maturity.

sand_man · 2009-05-13 00:22:32

Xyne wrote:

As this Wikipedia article clearly shows, ReiserFS is the only available file system that murders your wife.

That is hilarious XD

iphitus · 2009-05-13 01:01:04

I used to use Reiser3 for my /var, but I don't any longer as Reiser3 is undeveloped and nearly unmaintained, practically only receiving updates to keep it mounting and functioning.

.:B:. · 2009-05-13 04:56:57

My /var is on reiserfs. If Reiser4 wasn't so CPU-intensive and was in the kernel, it would be my FS of choice. Now pretty much all my data partitions are tried and tested ext3.

Isengrin · 2009-05-13 05:34:09

Yup. ReiserFS for my /var, since a lot of people here suggested it for pacman, and it really improved it's performance. :3

moljac024 · 2009-05-13 07:03:08

Meh, I just use plain ol' boring ext3 for everything.

Last edited by moljac024 (2009-05-13 08:48:28)

xaiviax · 2009-05-13 08:59:53

/var here also, very happy with it...

Xyne · 2009-05-13 09:05:41

serious response:
I use ReiserFS for /var because of all the recommendations that I've seen on this forum. I use ext3 for nearly everything else (except /tmp which is a ramdisk). Once ext4 feels mature, I'll probably migrate to that but I haven't really looked at the configuration options yet.

Aprz · 2009-05-13 09:41:46

Meh, I wasn't going to post, but I decided to post anyhow. I've never used reiserfs as my root filesystem, but I have and still do use it for my /var partition. If you read the beginner guide, you'll see that it is recommended for /var because reiserfs supposedly has optimal performance for small files, which /var often contains just very small files.

In my observation of filesystems, all of them have insignificant differences in terms of speed to the human naked eye, hehe. I've used JFS, XFS, Reiser4, and ext{2,3} for my root partition and the only difference I ever notice is in milliseconds and in benchmarks. Any noticeable speed difference, in my opinion (this is not fact), is really just a placebo. Some will certainly have significant difference in numbers like 100ms vs 300ms, but like I said earlier, to the human eye, it's really insignificant. That is my opinion though, not fact. Some of you might be able to feel and see the 200ms difference . Of course, this insignificant difference in speed to me doesn't stop me from choosing the optimal filesystem (in terms of speed and reliability.. I don't feel features and stability is much of an issue these days. It either works or it doesn't in most cases - if you read WhyReiser4IsNotIn, you'll see that "it works for me" comment and then the reply "Well, you're not a kernel dev, are you?" reply... yeah... exactly that! [In fact, I get annoyed when people get annoyed that other people only really mention the speed of filesystems, lol, stupid hot shots, cause the like I said, the stability and features almost don't even really matter, reliability does, but in most cases, it either does or doesn't work... No, I am not an expert so don't eat me plz!], I doubt most people even bother using very specific features from featureful filesystems like ext3 or exotic features from Reiser4, lol, with their plugins, okay, except that compression feature!) for each of my partitions.

So in concluson, I recommend using reiserfs for /var, but overall... I doubt you'll notice a difference when you're playing games, browsing the web, compiling, or whatever you do like "Oh yeah, my game doesn't lag anymore cause I use reiserfs, woohoo!!! I really do feel a difference!!!" It's that taco bell commercial "I'm full!!!". Heh. This will probably come back to bite me one day cause I used to say the same about compiling kernels and people still say this, but it really does make a difference when you know what you're doing, but in filesystem cases, I don't really know what I am talking about, lol. It's a little funny cause I am actually learn a lot about the Linux kernel, but there is just a googolplex amount of things to learn including filesystems and I just haven't reached that level yet.

I don't mean to turn people away from either Reiser filesystem, [joke]but I wish there was a kill whoever you want feature rather than just your wife feature[/joke] if y'all know what I mean *thumbs up*:). I mean that very lightly and don't wish to put dirt on any of the developers who also contributed either of the Reiser filesystems. In my experience, both have worked very well for me. Unfortunately, I prefer JFS for /(root), /usr, /home, tmpfs for /var/run and /tmp, and reiserfs for /var only. Probably not very optimal choices, but I am not an expert either and just like to believe whatever I want.

Last edited by Aprz (2009-05-13 09:56:58)

Zariel · 2009-05-13 09:54:37

moving webkit source + git tree seems to take longer on ext4 than it did on reiser3, i would love to try reiser4 again on /home

thoffmeyer · 2009-05-14 17:52:49

sand_man wrote:

Xyne wrote:
As this Wikipedia article clearly shows, ReiserFS is the only available file system that murders your wife.
That is hilarious XD

ROFL. I just about fell out of the chair.

jwcxz · 2009-05-14 20:09:53

@Aprz: I still don't quite understand why btrfs is in the kernel even though it's not even close to complete yet.

smartboyathome · 2009-05-14 20:20:02

I use it on my external drive, mostly because there is too much data to back up on there, and I originally formatted it reiserfs.

arkay · 2009-05-14 20:29:57

Haha... that's gold. I know at least 5 guys I can get to move to Linux now just for that last feature in the wiki article

Cheers,

Arkay.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-12 01:16:35

Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#2 2009-05-12 01:41:44

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#3 2009-05-12 02:11:13

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#4 2009-05-12 02:15:05

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#5 2009-05-12 09:17:01

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#6 2009-05-13 00:22:32

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#7 2009-05-13 01:01:04

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#8 2009-05-13 04:56:57

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#9 2009-05-13 05:34:09

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#10 2009-05-13 07:03:08

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#11 2009-05-13 08:59:53

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#12 2009-05-13 09:05:41

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#13 2009-05-13 09:41:46

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#14 2009-05-13 09:54:37

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#15 2009-05-14 17:52:49

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#16 2009-05-14 20:09:53

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#17 2009-05-14 20:20:02

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

#18 2009-05-14 20:29:57

Re: Ok who uses Reiserfs and why do you like it?

Board footer