Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
Jose, since you clearly have nothing useful to say. Why don't you let Teddy talk for himself. On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:48:11 +0100, Jose Celestino [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Words by [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:13:32PM -0700]: Teddy, It is a pity you don't address the full set of results, when you make your snide comments. Now since you have them,... why don't you make reasoned comment about them. You can read more here: John, it is not because you keep posting the same numbers over and over again (or is this your new signature?) that they will be more substantiated (hint: cpu usage). Just more annoying each time. I'll remember to use reiser4 for my 90-percent-zero-files-no-need-for-proven-robustness-and-plenty-of-cpu-to-spare boxes. Thank you. http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm .-. | FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK | | TYPE |(secs)|USAGE| .-. |REISER4 lzo | 1938 | 278 | |REISER4 gzip| 2295 | 213 | |REISER4 | 3462 | 692 | |EXT2| 4092 | 816 | |JFS | 4225 | 806 | |EXT4| 4408 | 816 | |EXT3| 4421 | 816 | |XFS | 4625 | 779 | |REISER3 | 6178 | 793 | |FAT32 |12342 | 988 | |NTFS-3g |10414 | 772 | .-. Column one measures the time taken to complete the bonnie++ benchmarking test (run with the parameters bonnie++ -n128:128k:0) Column two, Disk Usage: measures the amount of disk used to store 655MB of raw data (which was 3 different copies of the Linux kernel sources). OR LOOK AT THE FULL RESULTS: .-. |File |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar |Unzip| Del | |System |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 | |Type | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig | .-. |REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 | 68 | 83 | 48 | 70 | |REISER4 lzo | 278 | 138 | 56 | 80 | 34 | 84 | |REISER4 tails| 673 | 148 | 63 | 78 | 33 | 65 | |REISER4 | 692 | 148 | 55 | 67 | 25 | 56 | |NTFS3g | 772 |1333 |1426 | 585 | 767 | 194 | |NTFS | 779 | 781 | 173 | X | X | X | |REISER3 | 793 | 184 | 98 | 85 | 63 | 22 | |XFS | 799 | 220 | 173 | 119 | 90 | 106 | |JFS | 806 | 228 | 202 | 95 | 97 | 127 | |EXT4 extents | 806 | 162 | 55 | 69 | 36 | 32 | |EXT4 default | 816 | 174 | 70 | 74 | 42 | 50 | |EXT3 | 816 | 182 | 74 | 73 | 43 | 51 | |EXT2 | 816 | 201 | 82 | 73 | 39 | 67 | |FAT32| 988 | 253 | 158 | 118 | 81 | 95 | .-. Each test was preformed 5 times and the average value recorded. Disk Usage: The amount of disk used to store the data (which was 3 different copies of the Linux kernel sources). The raw data (without filesystem meta-data, block alignment wastage, etc) was 655MB. Copy 655MB (1): Copy the data over a partition boundary. Copy 655MB (2): Copy the data within a partition. Tar Gzip 655MB: Tar and Gzip the data. Unzip UnTar 655MB: UnGzip and UnTar the data. Del 2.5 Gig: Delete everything just written (about 2.5 Gig). To get a feel for the performance increases that can be achieved by using compression, we look at the total time (in seconds) to run the test: bonnie++ -n128:128k:0 (bonnie++ is Version 1.93c) .---. | FILESYSTEM | TIME | .---. |REISER4 lzo | 1938| |REISER4 gzip| 2295| |REISER4 | 3462| |EXT4| 4408| |EXT2| 4092| |JFS | 4225| |EXT3| 4421| |XFS | 4625| |REISER3 | 6178| |FAT32 | 12342| |NTFS-3g |10414| .---. On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:56:32 -0400, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:44:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To get a feel for the performance increases that can be achieved by using compression, we look at the total time (in seconds) to run the test: You mean the performance increases of writing a file which is mostly all zero's? Yawn. - Ted -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Jose Celestino http://www.msversus.org/ ; http://techp.org/petition/show/1 http://www.vinc17.org/noswpat.en.html And on the trillionth day, Man created Gods. -- Thomas D. Pate -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 06:21:29AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jose, since you clearly have nothing useful to say. Why don't you let Teddy talk for himself. John, You should first apply your own advice to yourself. Annoying everyone with the exact same mail 10 times a day is really disserving to the cause you pretend to defend. Please stop tainting reiser4's reputation, because I suspect that it can do far more things than what you make it look like. Its developers certainly need useful reports instead of a mentally deficient's rant. Now please call the nurse for your injection and go back to bed. Thank you in advance, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
The reason why I ignore the tar+gzip tests is that in the past Hans has rigged the test by using a tar ball which was generated by unpacking a set of kernel sources on a reiser4 filesystem, and then repacking them using tar+gzip. The result was a tar file whose files were optimally laid out so that reiser4 could insert them into the filesystem b-tree without doing any extra work. I can't say for sure whether or not this set of benchmarks has done this (there's not enough information describing the benchmark setup), but the sad fact of the matter is that people trying to pitch Reiser4 have generated for themselves a reputation for using rigged benchmarks. Hans's used of a carefully stacked and ordered tar file (which is the same as stacking a deck of cards), and your repeated use of the bonnee++ benchmarks despite being told that it is a meaningless result given the fact that well, zero's compress very well and most people are interested in storing a file of all zeros, has caused me to look at any benchmarks cited by Reiser4 partisans with a very jaundiced and skeptical eye. Fortunately for you, it's not up to me whether or not Reiser4 makes it into the kernel. And if it works for you, hey, go wild. You can always patch it into your own kernel and encourage others to do the same with respect to getting it tested and adopted. My personal take on it is that Reiser3, Reiser4 and JFS suffer the same problems, which is to say they have a very small and limited development community, and this was referenced in Novell's decision to drop Reiser3: http://linux.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/suse-102-ditching-reiserfs-as-it-default-fs/ SuSE has deprecated Reiser3 *and* JFS, and I believe quite strongly it is the failure of the organizations to attract a diverse development community is ultimately what doomed them in the long term, both in terms of support as the kernel migrated and new feature support. It is for that reason that Hans' personality traits that tend to drive away those developers who would help them, beyond those that he hires, is what has been so self-destructive to Reiser4. Read the announcement Jeff Mahoney from SUSE Labs again; he pointed out was that reiser3 was getting dropped even though it performs better than ext3 in some scenarios. There are many other considerations, such as a filesystem's robustness in case on-disk corruption, long term maintenance as the kernel maintains, availability of developers to provide bug fixes, how well the system performs on systems with multiple cores/CPU's, etc. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 1/17] locks: trivial removal of unnecessary parentheses
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 08:30:04PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:40:51 -0400 J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted Remove some unnecessary parentheses. Please don't do this. It is unnecessary churn for zero gain. The gain is certainly very close to zero, but still seems positive (removing some visual clutter), and the churn doesn't seem likely to cause problems as long as we're touching the same lines in later patches anyway. I've no intention of launching any broad assault against unnecessary parentheses. --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
Jeff Garzik wrote: If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready. Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are arguing ? Despite his substantially less than polite rhetoric, I have read Hans's post from months if not years ago. Aside from the pissing contests - which where not entirely one sided, I actually beleive that Hans made a reasonable case that Reiser4 had gone about as far as it could reasonably go with regard to testing, robustness, ... without the broader base of use that even an experimental filesystem in distribution tree would get. I for one would atleast play with it if it were in the distribution tree. As far as I could tell pretty much everything else that was demanded Hans eventually caved and provided - albeit with much pissing and moaning, and holy than thou rhetoric. The argument that anything that needs testing can't get into the distribution tree's is specious. There is alot of poorly tested crap in the distribution trees. But separately, there is the issue of scale. Namesys claims that they have no currently know bugs, faults ... - with their base of internal and external users. I would fully expect new failures to crop up with any filesystem, driver, ... moving up an order of magnitude in users. Are you going to subject all filesystems and drivers to the same high standards you are placing on Reiser4 ? If so then we need to strip the distribution tree now. I am not looking to defend Hans - he is likely to be in jail and no longer a factor for a long time. Nor am I looking to make or support claims for Reiser4. But I am asking - why we can not get past the bad blood, rhetoric, and zealotry -which to my eyes has not been all one sided. I am NOT looking for a technical explanation of all the relative merits and demerits of Reiser4. I do not care for arguments about whether it compresses 0's well, or that tail combining is a bad thing. They may have merit, but there is not a filesystem that is going to be all things to all people. Whether Reiser4 is a small niche filesystem or a significant general use one, is a decision that should be reached by its performance in practice, not it rhetoric. Regardless, even as a niche filesystem, I beleive at this point it merits inclusion. -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
David H. Lynch Jr wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready. Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are arguing ? Despite his substantially less than polite rhetoric, I have read Hans's post from months if not years ago. Aside from the pissing contests - which where not entirely one sided, I actually beleive that Hans made a reasonable case that Reiser4 had gone about as far as it could reasonably go with regard to testing, robustness, ... without the broader base of use that even an experimental filesystem in distribution tree would get. I for one would atleast play with it if it were in the distribution tree. As far as I could tell pretty much everything else that was demanded Hans eventually caved and provided - albeit with much pissing and moaning, and holy than thou rhetoric. The argument that anything that needs testing can't get into the distribution tree's is specious. There is alot of poorly tested crap in the distribution trees. I'm arguing against circular logic: the claim that one cannot determine reiser4's true usefulness unless its in the tree. The better method is to get a distro to add reiser4, _then_ if it proves worthy add it to the kernel tree. Not the other way around. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christer Weinigel: Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing list, to, AS YOU SAY, shut the fuck up. Even reading up on the REISER4 filesystem would help. Applying a little intelligence would undoubtedly help too. John; I would like to see Reiser4 get into the Kernel too. But angry rhetoric ... is not going to do it. If it was enough Hans did a much better job of insulting the naysayers without resulting to vulgarity, And it got him pretty much nowhere. It is my personal oppinion that the reason Reiser4 did not reach the kernel long ago was because Hans pissed all over way to many people. Making this about people will serve no one. We can all call each other assholes, go home feeling vindicated, but Reiser4 will be no closer to the kernel, and any potential that anyone might have benefited from that will just be pissed away. After that the statistics you are reporting are not TOTALLY meaningless. But they are also not compelling. It is not wise to be arguing benchmarks anyway. I hope that few on this list are not willing to conceed that Reiser4 is fast. Whether it is 10% slower than the best or 3 times as fast is probably not relevant to whether it gets included. All the worst case scenarious of Reiser4 performance and behavior should all still be sufficient to justify letting it in as Experimental. You can argue your benchmarks forever. Your benchmark has narrow applicability - pretty much every benchmark will. And all you do is provoke a firestorm of debate over whether compressing zeros means anything, whether compression is even a good idea, whether, .. The answer to ALL of these questions will be it depends I have dealt with huge data sets that were mostly zero's, a file system that had a factor of 3 space savings and or performance benefit might have mattered alot there - but they are not the norm. I have dealt with instances where compression increased performance rather than decreased it. Every feature of Reiser4 is an asset in some environments and a liability in others. Whether it is suitable for most environments is nto going to be established by a benchmark. -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL.
REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL. Dave Lynch takes a reasoned approach to REISER4. Dave Lynch wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready. Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are arguing ? Jeff Garzik is saying that he wants REISER4 to stay out of the main kernel, for reasons he is not willing to tell you. Despite his substantially less than polite rhetoric, I have read Hans's post from months if not years ago. Aside from the pissing contests - which where not entirely one sided, On the basis of what I have seen here,... Hans Reiser was probably an angel. I actually beleive that Hans made a reasonable case that Reiser4 had gone about as far as it could reasonably go with regard to testing, robustness, ... without the broader base of use that even an experimental filesystem in distribution tree would get. Of course, this is an entirely reasonable request of Reiser's. One meet with an array of unreasonable actions, but mainly STALLING which has led to REISER4 never becoming part of the main kernel. It has also lead to many false claims about REISER4. Claims that are never backed up with solid statistics, but used to keep REISER4 out of the kernel and tar its reputation. I for one would at least play with it if it were in the distribution tree. I AM SURE THERE ARE A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD GIVE IT A TRY. As far as I could tell Hans pretty much everything else that was demanded. Hans eventually caved and provided - albeit with much pissing and moaning, and holy than thou rhetoric. It was not his pissing and moaning, etc,... these were just excuses to keep REISER4 from succeeding. The truth is, that any excuse would do. The real reasons are financial and backed by big money (sometimes, big egos). The argument that anything that needs testing can't get into the distribution tree's is specious. There is alot of poorly tested crap in the distribution trees. Yes, the argument that anything that needs testing can't get in is indeed stupid. But stupid things often work. Is REISER4 in the kernel? Is REISER4 a success? But separately, there is the issue of scale. Namesys claims that they have no currently know bugs, faults ... - with their base of internal and external users. I would fully expect new failures to crop up with any filesystem, driver, ... moving up an order of magnitude in users. Are you going to subject all filesystems and drivers to the same high standards you are placing on Reiser4 ? If so then we need to strip the distribution tree now. No. Only those things that threaten big money. I am not looking to defend Hans - he is likely to be in jail and no longer a factor for a long time. Nor am I looking to make or support claims for Reiser4. Why not defend Hans? He is in jail on what appear to be trumped-up charges, just like the trumped-up complainants about his filesystem. But I am asking - why we can not get past the bad blood, rhetoric, and zealotry -which to my eyes has not been all one sided. Money talks, BS walks. Reiser4 is a little guy. You should play in my league. I am NOT looking for a technical explanation of all the relative merits and demerits of Reiser4. I do not care for arguments about whether it compresses 0's well, or that tail combining is a bad thing. They may have merit, but there is not a filesystem that is going to be all things to all people. Yeap. Whether Reiser4 is a small niche filesystem or a significant general use one, is a decision that should be reached by its performance in practice, not it rhetoric. Regardless, even as a niche filesystem, I beleive at this point it merits inclusion. Yeap. REISER4 merits inclusion. John. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:16:18 -0400, David H. Lynch Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christer Weinigel: Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing list, to, AS YOU SAY, shut the fuck up. Even reading up on the REISER4 filesystem would help. Applying a little intelligence would undoubtedly help too. John; I would like to see Reiser4 get into the Kernel too. But angry rhetoric ... is not going to do it. I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THE VERY ANGRY RHETORIC COMING FROM CERTAIN FOLK ON THE MAILING LIST. I think it really needs to be pointed out as some of those here are extremely rude, bordering on unpleasant. I only use angry rhetoric to make a point. HAS THAT POINT BEEN MADE? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but differentÂ… - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL.
YOU GUYS WILL LAUGH ABOUT THIS: I forgot the all the statistics that might support the sase for REISER4 inclusion. Well, here it all is: http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm .-. | FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK | | TYPE |(secs)|USAGE| .-. |REISER4 lzo | 1938 | 278 | |REISER4 gzip| 2295 | 213 | |REISER4 | 3462 | 692 | |EXT2| 4092 | 816 | |JFS | 4225 | 806 | |EXT4| 4408 | 816 | |EXT3| 4421 | 816 | |XFS | 4625 | 779 | |REISER3 | 6178 | 793 | |FAT32 |12342 | 988 | |NTFS-3g |10414 | 772 | .-. Column one measures the time taken to complete the bonnie++ benchmarking test (run with the parameters bonnie++ -n128:128k:0) Column two, Disk Usage: measures the amount of disk used to store 655MB of raw data (which was 3 different copies of the Linux kernel sources). OR LOOK AT THE FULL RESULTS: .-. |File |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar |Unzip| Del | |System |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 | |Type | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig | .-. |REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 | 68 | 83 | 48 | 70 | |REISER4 lzo | 278 | 138 | 56 | 80 | 34 | 84 | |REISER4 tails| 673 | 148 | 63 | 78 | 33 | 65 | |REISER4 | 692 | 148 | 55 | 67 | 25 | 56 | |NTFS3g | 772 |1333 |1426 | 585 | 767 | 194 | |NTFS | 779 | 781 | 173 | X | X | X | |REISER3 | 793 | 184 | 98 | 85 | 63 | 22 | |XFS | 799 | 220 | 173 | 119 | 90 | 106 | |JFS | 806 | 228 | 202 | 95 | 97 | 127 | |EXT4 extents | 806 | 162 | 55 | 69 | 36 | 32 | |EXT4 default | 816 | 174 | 70 | 74 | 42 | 50 | |EXT3 | 816 | 182 | 74 | 73 | 43 | 51 | |EXT2 | 816 | 201 | 82 | 73 | 39 | 67 | |FAT32| 988 | 253 | 158 | 118 | 81 | 95 | .-. Each test was preformed 5 times and the average value recorded. Disk Usage: The amount of disk used to store the data (which was 3 different copies of the Linux kernel sources). The raw data (without filesystem meta-data, block alignment wastage, etc) was 655MB. Copy 655MB (1): Copy the data over a partition boundary. Copy 655MB (2): Copy the data within a partition. Tar Gzip 655MB: Tar and Gzip the data. Unzip UnTar 655MB: UnGzip and UnTar the data. Del 2.5 Gig: Delete everything just written (about 2.5 Gig). To get a feel for the performance increases that can be achieved by using compression, we look at the total time (in seconds) to run the test: bonnie++ -n128:128k:0 (bonnie++ is Version 1.93c) .---. | FILESYSTEM | TIME | .---. |REISER4 lzo | 1938| |REISER4 gzip| 2295| |REISER4 | 3462| |EXT4| 4408| |EXT2| 4092| |JFS | 4225| |EXT3| 4421| |XFS | 4625| |REISER3 | 6178| |FAT32 | 12342| |NTFS-3g |10414| .---. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
David H. Lynch Jr wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: David H. Lynch Jr wrote: I'm arguing against circular logic: the claim that one cannot determine reiser4's true usefulness unless its in the tree. The better method is to get a distro to add reiser4, _then_ if it proves worthy add it to the kernel tree. Not the other way around. And is that how other filesystems made it into the tree ? In the case of most major filesystems, yes. Distros are a proving ground for new stuff, not the upstream kernel. I regularly see drivers with very little in the way of testing go straight nearly straight into the tree - without even getting tagged as experimental. Hardware drivers are vastly different from filesystem drivers. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: YOU GUYS WILL LAUGH ABOUT THIS: Yes, we are laughing at you. You keep using bonnie++ after being told it's a poor benchmark. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you referenced to in a reply... TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed. A simple cut and paste error. You have got some rude answers and you have called them back on it Yeah, I (fairly closely) mimicked their behavior to make a point. + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is not the best way of convincing people. I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to repeat that repeating stuff has no effect. I believe you picked up the anti-Reiser religion-phrase from previous rant-wars (otherwise, why does that religion-phrase always come up, and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing with this matter. NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against Reiser4. Hence the term anti-Reiser religion. Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up. Perhaps if you guided me through it. You deliberately ignored the fact that bad blocks are NOT dealt with by the filesystem,... but by the operating system. Like I said: If your filesystem is writing to bad blocks, then throw away your operating system. I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either. But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it. Yes, it should not assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? It's a tough ask of any FS. Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box last night. I had used ntfsresize to reduce the partition size and had a power outage. Later, Windows booted, ran the filesystem checker, seemed OK. Next time I boot, all I get is Input/Output error. Just my 2c to the pond Richard Knutsson Addin my 2c John. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
