Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Windows-Compatible ReactOS Is Getting ReiserFS Support

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Windows-Compatible ReactOS Is Getting ReiserFS Support

    Phoronix: Windows-Compatible ReactOS Is Getting ReiserFS Support

    ReactOS, the open-source operating system aiming for binary compatibility with Windows drivers and programs, is adding ReiserFS support...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Reiserfs is great for getting about 500MB free space back for every 16GB used compared to ext4. (typical mix of files)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Shimon View Post
      Reiserfs is great for getting about 500MB free space back for every 16GB used compared to ext4. (typical mix of files)
      Why is that? Something to do with block size or journal?

      Comment


      • #4
        Reiser 4 or 3.6? I used 3.6 back in the days and it was actually fairly good if you had lots of small files (iirc. it was also default fs for a long time in SuSE). I think it is sad that people did not abstract the murder case from the pure tech and threw both into one pot so everbody kinda dropped Reiser 4.

        Anyway, it's nice to see some Linux / Unix OS in a "windows style" environment. Makes dualboots more comfortable. Though, on the other hand, sometimes it might be good that windows can't access Linux FSs -> think of malware like those crypto things recently.

        >Why is that? Something to do with block size or journal?

        I guess it might well be something with the blocks / inodes. I mean, that is normally the case when you have a tradeoff with the space. It's always a matter of weighing the possible use of a filesystem into the choice of minimum administration unit size / overhead. Not enough inodes saves you some overhead but if you run out of inodes this is really nasty (happened to me recently). More inodes, smaller units, more overhead. *shrugs*
        I don't know about the journals but I wouldn't expect the differences to be so huge.
        At least all of them should still be better than FAT16 / FAT32 (vfat), which easily wasted 31 KiB per file on small text files in most partitions of larger size.
        Stop TCPA, stupid software patents and corrupt politicians!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          Why is that? Something to do with block size or journal?
          Tail packing. It does wonders especially when you have lots of files smaller than the block size.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gusar View Post
            Tail packing. It does wonders especially when you have lots of files smaller than the block size.
            Ok, I see, Thanks. So in cases like the portage tree, which is mostly tiny files, supposing capacity is not an issue, do you think ReiserFS would be a worthwhile filesystem to use? Does the tail packing incur a performance penalty?

            EDIT: Also just for curiosity sake, wouldn't a loopback image formated as ext4 effectively do the same thing?
            Last edited by duby229; 27 March 2016, 09:30 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think anyone cares about the file system. I think people want Windows compatibility from ReactOS.

              I would rather see ReactOS developers contribute to something that could benefit the Wine project.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pepec9124

                Is it something that SSD can't fix ?
                I don't understand. An SSD is a storage medium, where RieserFS is a filesystem format.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pepec9124

                  I mean performance with tiny files.
                  Sure, but that wasn't what I was asking really. Given two different filesystems on the same hardware performance can be different. Really what I was asking about was filesystem performance. In the case of ReiserFS, I was wondering if tail packing incurs a performance hit. And also would ext4 on a loopback image accomplish the same thing since it's encapsulated in a single file?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Tail packing is great but even if you mount with `notail`, you're still going to see some benefit. That's the beauty of reiserfs tree.

                    Packing incurs a slight performance penalty needing more CPU. I'd tried the loopback approach on my SD card a while ago, looking in vain for some write performance benefit but it did help with better space usage. (not to the extent reiserfs does)
                    Last edited by Shimon; 27 March 2016, 02:50 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X