On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:06:37PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> I don't think ext2 is a serious option for servers of the sort that
> Linux specializes in, which is probably why he didn't measure it.
FWIW, I use Linux to run an application which generates many large
temporary files. Some larger runs could easily generate hundreds
of GB of on-disk data. I really prefer to use ext2 for these temp
files. The speed is nice, and the data consistency guarantees the
other FSes give me does not really mean much as most of the files
are not of any use if the machine were to crash. Fsck times on
an unclean shutdown are a problem, but I guess I could solve that
by running mkext2fs instead.
On my home machine I switched the partition I do mozilla development
on from ext3 back to ext2. The man reason being that "make clobber"
was so much faster. And again I feel comfortable doing this because
I can regenerate everything on that partiton with out too much
work.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that ext2 still has its uses. Im
looking forward to trying out reiser4. The speed looks quite impressive
from what I have seen on the net.
Thanks,
Jim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:38 EST