Reiserfs4 seems to be a little better then XFS on concurrent (5-10) disk accesses, speaking of 2.6 kernels both are parsecs before the others in this kind of acces.
Reiser4 is a nice toy to play with, but I gave up on it months ago as it really made my kernels less stable, and I didn't see any real benefits. On the [ck] mailing list, I even posted some benchmarks against xfs and reiser4 using a real world test case, and XFS was better by a small margin. reiser4 uses too much CPU, while xfs does not.
Speaking of july/august 2004
-- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
