You know, I've heard the same argument against reiserfs for ages, and
using it on countless servers (both home and enterprise) for at least
the past 5 years I've _never_ once encountered unrecoverable reiser
filesystem errors pertaining to whatever kind of ungraceful/ugly reboots
I've had to do.  That and with no manual tweaking of reiserfs, I can say
I've been pretty darn happy with it.  I've had a great deal more
occurrences with manually having to fsck ext3 even as rarely as I ever
do actually use it.

I was rather quite looking forward to reiser4 before he had to go kill
his wife...

-mb


On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 11:47 -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> > Does anybody know what happens when you stash a huge number of tiny
> > files in Ext4?  Does it store them efficiently the way ReiserFS does?
> 
> No.  Neither ext3 nor ext4 efficiently stores sub-block sized files.
> The minimum files size granularity is the block size.  The internal
> fragmentation can hurt with many small files.
> 
> As others have mentioned, reiserfs handles that.  However, I can't
> recommend reiserfs unless extra effort is devoted to backups, since
> catastrophic failures can result from the loss of a single block
> in reiserfs.  I have high hopes for btrfs, which appears to solve
> these issues and more, but I haven't switched over to it yet.
> 
> -Dale
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> 

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss