Retrying it...
Seems like it is _not_ reproduceable currently!
The mkreiserfs ran through it without any problems!
If I can reproduce it again, I will send all
informations.
> While ext3 is mounted as fast as ext2, reiserfs seems is slower.
>
> Slower to mount? Or slower to use?
Mount and delete.
reiserfs
I created 200000 empty files, and then deleted them.
ext2: creating took a very long time, I aborted (was about 7 minutes)
reiserfs: creating was done in about 3 minutes
ext2: deleting started with find | xargs rm, no problem.
reiserfs: started deleting, recieved NULL pointer
(kernel oops)
> ext3, 10 GB: ~ 0.5 seconds reisferfs 10 GB: ~ 3-5 seconds
>
> Probably journal replay, still, you might have slow disks.
It's been the same disk.
and i don't think it was a reply, because I created the
filesystem some seconds before.
> A journal
> reply for me of 60+ events takes about 1 second on a single spindle
> (SCSI, U160).
Hmm.... I used udma33 :(
> Do it really matter (within reason) which fs mounts and is made
> faster? It's not something you do every other minute.
You are right. I was only surprised that the so called
fast reiserfs takes soo long at mounting.
> While running there occured some problems with reiserfs.
>
> Such as?
It was impossible to delete the files on the one partition.
(see above) The problem is, after I reformated the partition
it was not reproduceable.
It seems there are some strange things in reiserfs, which
happen at special situations.
Nico
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/