Finally, Reiser4 Benchmarks Against EXT4 & Btrfs

[pejakm]

and you are just a troll. A bad one. So go home and be nice to your mother.

Oh, and you aren't one?! Your posts are nothing but the flaming and trolling.

[energyman]

pejakm, that from you?I am shocked, really, I am.

And RobbieAB, using broken patches and then mentioning that some tests did not run, is hurtting reiser4 and is bad for phoronix. You sound like a little, butthurt extX fanboy.

If Michael would have used the CORRECT patches, I am pretty sure all tests would have run. But so he hurt reiser4. Deliberately or not?

'We' complain that the test was not fair. And your own words support that. The test is BULLSHIT. Ok?

I have tried zen in the past and there were ALWAYS problems with that pile of crap. Always.

I can't remember the last time I had any problems with reiser4 using Edward's fine patches. Early 2007 AFAIR.

Why did Micheal use patches from some obscure project instead of the original ones? There is no sense in Micheal's choice

[pejakm]

pejakm, that from you?I am shocked, really, I am.

I'm sorry to hear that, but realize that being impolite in your posts is definitely not a good way to discuss something, and will get you nowhere. You keep flaming Michael for using broken patches: I'm using zen patches for about a year and a half, and the only issues I had were due to recently introduced BFS (which you don't have to use, by the way), but this also is fixed very quickly. As I understand, zen kernel uses Edwards reiser4 patches.

How about politely ask Michael to use vanilla kernel just with the reiser4 patchset? Maybe he would respond to that?

[RobbieAB]

And RobbieAB, using broken patches and then mentioning that some tests did not run, is hurtting reiser4 and is bad for phoronix. You sound like a little, butthurt extX fanboy.

energyman, I was specifically NOT commenting on the choice of patches. I was referring to the manner of reporting on what was tested, which to my mind was poor. If the wrong patch set was chosen, that makes it even worse, but to my mind the report implied that the patch set chosen is usable.

Yes, I use ext3 mostly, but that choice was based on specific reasons going back many years, and I have never had any reason to consider changing. For me, it does what I want. That is enough reason to use it, FOR ME. Your usage and desires may be different.

If Michael would have used the CORRECT patches, I am pretty sure all tests would have run. But so he hurt reiser4. Deliberately or not?

'We' complain that the test was not fair. And your own words support that. The test is BULLSHIT. Ok?

You complain that he tested the wrong patches. I can't comment on that.

My complaint is that he misrepresents what he tested. By his own account, what he tested outright failed some tests. Is this acceptable in a file-system? I say not. Does he outright slam the patchset he tested? No. Why not?

The fact he should have tested a different patchset, or carried out tests on different hardware, don't change the fundamental complaint I have which is that he reports his results in a questionable manner.

I have tried zen in the past and there were ALWAYS problems with that pile of crap. Always.

I can't remember the last time I had any problems with reiser4 using Edward's fine patches. Early 2007 AFAIR.

Why did Micheal use patches from some obscure project instead of the original ones? There is no sense in Micheal's choice

I can't comment on the zen patchset, as I have never used it. I mostly use either a vanilla kernel, gentoo-sources, or a lightly patched torvalds git pull.

Only Micheal can explain his choice of patchsets, I have never even attempted to defend that. Maybe if he used a different patchset it would have passed those tests and wowed us all with it's performance. Does that change my comments that he is mis-reporting what he DID test?

[energyman]

I'm sorry to hear that, but realize that being impolite in your posts is definitely not a good way to discuss something, and will get you nowhere. You keep flaming Michael for using broken patches: I'm using zen patches for about a year and a half, and the only issues I had were due to recently introduced BFS (which you don't have to use, by the way), but this also is fixed very quickly. As I understand, zen kernel uses Edwards reiser4 patches.

How about politely ask Michael to use vanilla kernel just with the reiser4 patchset? Maybe he would respond to that?

for the same reason he let ext3 without barriers run against reiserfs and xfs with barriers...

and zen patches are not Edward - at least not 'vanilla' - or there wouldn't have been that -rcX clusterfuck where it was so badly broken, they warned in their notes about it.
If you want reliable results, Edward'S patches are the only choice. How can you even can come up with the ida that extracting patches from a very experimental and very untested kernel is a good idea?

[pejakm]

How can you even can come up with the ida that extracting patches from a very experimental and very untested kernel is a good idea?

I wouldn't call zen-stable branch very experimental, especially very untested. (In case you are not familiar with what zen kernel offers: http://zen-kernel.org/2.6.33-zen1-dust-remover)

I'm not very skilled with git, but I'll try to extract reiser4 patches and then compare it with Edwards (found here: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kerne...eiser4-for-2.6). It would be interesting to see the differences, don't you think so?

[Yfrwlf]

HOW COULD YOU FORGET ABOUT TUX3 HOW DARE U!!!!111

j/k

[Apopas]

That was a really interesting article!
Thanks a ton!

[Apopas]

Reiser sucks. Get over it.

Who cares for Reiser? We talk for the filesystem here and for sure it has good potential.

[pejakm]

HOW COULD YOU FORGET ABOUT TUX3 HOW DARE U!!!!111

j/k

I agree, it would be interesting to see Tux3 in action. However, Tux3 is still in very experimental state, question is would it work at all?