[ale] [Robert.L.Harris at rdlg.net: Reiser vs EXT3]

[Joseph A Knapka]

Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I have seen similar... and have just assumed that Reiser was more robust due
> to it's age.

As I understand it, Reiser is faster, but can exhibit data corruption
in some circumstances. Ext3 is not known to have any such troubles.

Cheers,

-- Joe

 > It is also worth pondering whether ext3 has more overhead
> since it continuously maintains ext2 compatibility along the way.
> 
> -Jim P.
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Nomad the Wanderer [mailto:nomad at rdlg.net]On Behalf Of Robert L.
>>Harris
>>Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:54 AM
>>To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
>>Subject: [ale] [Robert.L.Harris at rdlg.net: Reiser vs EXT3]
>>
>>
>>
>>I bounced this to the Kernel list but they may be a bit busy with the
>>new release.  Thoughts/theories?
>>
>>
>>  Still working on that replacement mail server and a new rumor has hit
>>the mix.  It follows that reiserfs is much faster than ext3 (made ext3,
>>not converted from ext2 if it matters) and this is causing some
>>problems.  On a 200Gig filesystem is this truely an issue?


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.