Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgg==?= Dec <moog621@gmail.com>,
        reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: Alternatives after removal of ReiserFS
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 11:20:24 +0200
Message-ID: <2631780.mvXUDI8C0e@natalenko.name>
In-Reply-To: <54db8933-f2f3-d31a-c71f-860285e25abf@gmail.com>
References: <54db8933-f2f3-d31a-c71f-860285e25abf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hello.

On st=C5=99eda 18. kv=C4=9Btna 2022 14:10:25 CEST Micha=C5=82 Dec wrote:
> Does the Linux kernel actually offer any alternatives to users whose use=
=20
> cases are satisfied by ReiserFS? These users will probably be stuck with=
=20
> a much older kernel once ReiserFS is completely removed. I'm one of=20
> those users and I use ReiserFS to keep around large quantities of small=20
> files and quite ironically these are copies of the Linux kernel. I keep=20
> around 2, maybe 3 separate kernel trees to make sure the kernels I have=20
> on my devices can be rebuilt at any time.

I think the advantage of using reiserfs for small files faded away over tim=
e and became an old tale that is being passed from one generation to anothe=
r without any modern adequate testing.

XFS should serve you well.

=2D-=20
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)