[linux-lvm] EXT3 vs Reiserfs

[Spam]

> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 04:25:47AM +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>> why is that? thought reiser was faster than ext3 while ext3 would be
>> considered more stable (in general).

> Reiser has this "tail packing" option, as well as some other optimizations
> that benefit sites with lots of small files (best example: Usenet feeds).
> However, this can come at a price for really LARGE files (as a DB would need).

  Yes,  both  tail  packing  and other options can be turned on/off at
  mount time if you need more speed or space etc..

>> Before getting ways off topic: where can I find a good comparison /
>> discussion on different filesystems?

> Checkout
> http://oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/

  Interresting  to  see  the  benchmarks.  But why is ext3 tested with
  several options and the other FS not? For example noatime and notail
  changes performance of ReiserFS too.
  
> Since noone has mentioned XFS, let me throw in my recommendation for XFS.
> XFS (like, probably, IBM's JFS) is a top-notch filesystem. 
> Try it out in your scenario, you might like it.

  How  are  the XFS fsck tools compared to the reiser ones? Reiserfsck
  has saved me on more than one occation =)

> Ajay