From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:26:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:26:33 -0400 Received: from weta.f00f.org ([203.167.249.89]:24208 "EHLO weta.f00f.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:26:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:27:18 +1200 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Nico Schottelius Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: ext3/reiserfs: ext3fine, reiser got OOPS! Message-ID: <20010805172718.B20716@weta.f00f.org> In-Reply-To: <3B6CAE4E.17850717@pcsystems.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B6CAE4E.17850717@pcsystems.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-No-Archive: Yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:24:14AM +0200, Nico Schottelius wrote: I 've been using ext3 and reiserfs for somedays with 2.4.7. Using mkreiserfs I recieved some null pointer problems and recieved a kernel oops. Odd --- nobody else has reported this. Can you plese supply more details (ksymoops) such that these bugs may be fixed. While ext3 is mounted as fast as ext2, reiserfs seems is slower. Slower to mount? Or slower to use? ext3, 10 GB: ~ 0.5 seconds reisferfs 10 GB: ~ 3-5 seconds Probably journal replay, still, you might have slow disks. A journal reply for me of 60+ events takes about 1 second on a single spindle (SCSI, U160). Generating the journal with tune2fs was again much faster than mkreiserfs. But I think this is because reiser creates a new fs, wherefore mkfs.ext2 did that before. Yes. Do it really matter (within reason) which fs mounts and is made faster? It's not something you do every other minute. While running there occured some problems with reiserfs. Such as? I am wondering that reiserfs first got into the kernel before ext3! It was ready first (mostly). --cw