Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:56:14PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
At least reiser4 is smaller. IIRC xfs is older than reiser4 and had more time
to optimize code size, but:
reiser4 2557872 bytes
xfs 3306782 bytes
and romfs is smaller than ext2, damn. Should we remove all filesystems but
romfs now?
and yeah, if you didn't get the hint compare the feature sets.
XFS does have a nice feature set, sure. So does Reiser4.
XFS can "freeze" the filesystem, take a live snapshot, and do some
other, similar tricks. Reiser4 can show file metadata as files
themselves, compress on-the-fly (last I checked, the compression code is
in there, just not being used), and pack small files incredibly well.
XFS has xattrs. Reiser has metas, and will eventually provide an xattr
interface to them.
You may not value Reiser's feature set, but that doesn't make it less
complex. Romfs is actually simpler than ext2, and its whole "feature"
seems to be having a tiny implementation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |