Funny test, but NTFS-3g should be restested with 1.913, released on September 13, 2007. Speed was increased dramatically - especially on fragmented partitions.
What about the cpu usage? The last thing I remember is, that reiserfs was the overall fastest but also the most CPU consuming file system.
reiser4 has too many problems in long term use. Also when you install grub into that partition you can get into real trouble...
Some of you might be interested in this short article I found a while ago while peeping through btrfs' mailing lists:
It's a fairly recent comparison of most emerging (and old too) Linux filesystems. Bear in mind that some of them have made a lot of progress since then, particularly btrfs, at least according to the mailing lists.
I'm a little bit confused...
I had always thougt, reiser4 was unstable.
And I really need a stable FS, a stable Hardware, I have enough trouble with unstable Software, I want to concentrate on other Tings.
But of course I would like to see the reiser4 FS in the Linux kernel. But not if I'd have to loose stability, performance in other parts of the OS and much time.
IMHO, reiser4 suffers from the lack of a group of committed developers. I know at least one guy from Namesys kept working on it, but progress has been slow. I think it will get merged to mainline someday, just don't expect that to happen soon.
Originally Posted by Lykos
If you want stability, pick any of the other filesystems according to your needs. There's no be-all and end-all solution when talking about filesystems. At least not now.
Hans Reiser And His Filesystems.
I would strongly recommend against using reiser4 for real world use. I tried it and after several weeks it ate my filesystem and I was never able to recover data. Fortunately, that was on an experimental non-critical system.
Also note that in several benchmarks it is the only filesystem to crash and fail to complete the benchmark. For instance, from here:
"The first attempt with reiser4 ended rather unhappily with a crash part way through the testing which killed the filesystem."
Which matches my personal experience wherein I found it very unstable.
I think there is potential to this filesystem, but it simply is not stable enough for production or desktop use at the moment. I think it's fine to play with on a non-critical experimental system, but based on my experience with it, I would urge caution if a stable FS is required.
Yes, the Reiser4 filesystem has been deliberately sabotaged on occasions. If you use one of Morton's older patches, you are likely to run into trouble,...
See, the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS @
Last edited by Jade; 11-22-2008 at 11:49 PM.