Re: ReiserFS / 2.4.6 / Data Corruption

From: Rik van Riel (
Date: Mon Jul 30 2001 - 17:53:38 EST

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:

> > > The cost is not a crash, the cost is performance sucks.
> >
> > If you can chose between sucky performance or a chance
> > at silent data corruption ... which would you chose ?
> If you could halve linux memory manager performance and check as
> many things as reiserfs checks, would you do it.

I haven't removed a single debugging check from the
2.4 VM. Performance is MUCH more reliant on things
like evicting the right page from RAM or reading in
the right page at the right time.

CPU usage is only secondary.

> .. You made the right choice.

Thanks ;) [yeah, yeah ... flame me about out-of-context]

> Now, if you add a #define, you can check as many things as
> ReiserFS checks, and still go just as fast....

I'm sure these checks make reiserfs a tad more CPU hungry,
but isn't the real win in reiserfs supposed to come from
superior disk layout, readahead across files, etc... ?

Or is that all just a myth ?



Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
   "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:00:47 EST