Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Ext3 vs ReiserFS benchmarks

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the numbers-and-rollbacks-and-journals-oh-my dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Saw this new benchmark on the linux-kernel mailing list. Although NAMESYS, the developers of ReiserFS has many benchmarks on their site, they only have one Ext3 benchmark. The new benchmark tests Ext3 in ordered and writeback mode versus ReiserFS with and without the notail mount option. Better than expected results for Ext3. Big difference between ordered and writeback modes."

5 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. I'm spoiled by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 1, Funny

    I know that I'm stupid for saying this, but after the past few years, a benchmark isn't sexy unless it has scenes of flying dragons or a copied scene from the Matrix on the screen. I must have sold my soul to the devil for saying that.

  2. Re:Speaking of losing data... by Fluid+Truth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot cut off my comment!

    Awww, and here I thought you were trying to give an example of what the ReiserFS did to your data during a hash collision.

    --
    Apparently, of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
  3. Re:Can you document that? by RockyMountain · · Score: 2, Funny

    to informative information.

    Informative information? I really ought to use "Preview" before "Submit".

  4. Your bong had a hash collision by gregor_b_dramkin · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... that's why you lost your data. It annoys me to no end when people assume a cause for a problem and begin to state it as fact without verification or fact.

    Is it possible that there is a bug in reiserfs? Sure. I just don't trust anecdotal evidence from some dood on /.

    --
    You can never equivocate too much.
  5. Re:ext3 writeback vs ext2? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Funny

    So what's the point of running ext2 if it's exactly equivalent to ext3/writeback but with very slow fsck?