Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271700AbTGXPvF (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:51:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271701AbTGXPvF (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:51:05 -0400 Received: from D70c6.pppool.de ([80.184.112.198]:52869 "EHLO nicole.de.interearth.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271700AbTGXPuq (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:50:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Reiser4 status: benchmarked vs. V3 (and ext3) From: Daniel Egger To: Hans Reiser Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs mailing list In-Reply-To: <3F1EF7DB.2010805@namesys.com> References: <3F1EF7DB.2010805@namesys.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-11LU1xTdjT5qufgNnzxo" Message-Id: <1059062380.29238.260.camel@sonja> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 24 Jul 2003 17:59:40 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2031 Lines: 56 --=-11LU1xTdjT5qufgNnzxo Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Mit, 2003-07-23 um 23.02 schrieb Hans Reiser: > In brief, V4 is way faster than V3, and the wandering logs are indeed=20 > twice as fast as fixed location logs when performing writes in large=20 > batches. How do the wandering logs compare to the "wandering" logs of the log structured filesystem JFFS2? Does this mean I can achieve an implicit wear leveling for flash memory?=20 > We are able to perform all filesystem operations fully atomically, > while getting dramatic performance improvements. (Other attempts at > introducing transactions into filesystems are said to have failed for > performance reasons.) How failsafe is it to switch off the power several times? When the filesystem really works atomically I should have either the old or the new version but no mixture. Does it still need to fsck or is the transaction replay done at mount time? In case one still needs fsck, what's the probability of needing user interaction? How long does it need to get a filesystem back into a consistent state after a powerloss (approx. per MB/GB)? Background: I'm doing systems on compactflash cards and need a reliable filesystem for it. At the moment I'm using a compressed JFFS2 over the mtd emulation driver for block devices which works quite well but has a few catches... --=20 Servus, Daniel --=-11LU1xTdjT5qufgNnzxo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/IAJschlzsq9KoIYRAvC8AJ9lp8blC1AHYohR0l96uQS7WILJ/wCdFeMi WA1IXOnx+5fdJJ+NruOuJuA= =OhEi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-11LU1xTdjT5qufgNnzxo-- - 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/