Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion

[Mike Benoit <ipso@snappymail.ca>]

On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 12:25 +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Hans Reiser wrote:
> 
> > >and that's the end
> > >of the story for me. There's nothing wrong about focusing on newer code,
> > >but the old code needs to be cared for, too, to fix remaining issues
> > >such as the "can only have N files with the same hash value". 
> >
> > Requires a disk format change, in a filesystem without plugins, to fix it.
> 
> You see, I don't care a iota about "plugins" or other implementation details.
> 
> The bottom line is reiserfs 3.6 imposes practial limits that ext3fs
> doesn't impose and that's reason enough for an administrator not to
> install reiserfs 3.6. Sorry.
> 

And EXT3 imposes practical limits that ReiserFS doesn't as well. The big
one being a fixed number of inodes that can't be adjusted on the fly,
which was reason enough for me to not use EXT3 and use ReiserFS
instead. 

Do you consider the EXT3 developers to have "abandoned" it because they
haven't fixed this issue? I don't, I just think of it as using the right
tool for the job.

I've been bitten by running out of inodes on several occasions, and by
switching to ReiserFS it saved one company I worked for over $250,000
because they didn't need to buy a totally new piece of software.

I haven't been able to use EXT3 on a backup server for the last ~5 years
due to inode limitations. Instead, ReiserFS has been filling that spot
like a champ. 

The bottom line is that every file system imposes some sort of limits
that bite someone. In your case it sounds like EXT3 limits weren't an
issue for you, in my case they were. Thats life. 

-- 
Mike Benoit <ipso@snappymail.ca>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part