On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:22:23PM +0200, GCS wrote:
> > Does anyone have information on performance? Space utilization?
> I _think_ performance is about the same for XFS and ReiserFS. I forgot
> to make a compare test, when I moved to XFS from ReiserFS. Oh, and a
> little remark: as I know ext3 patches are for 2.2.x kernels only. It
> seems no one is intrested to port it to 2.4.x kernels. Thus I think ext3
> lost the game here. :-/ About space utilization: as I know ReiserFS can
> put several small files into one cluster, thus preserve more space for
> other files. On the other hand, XFS is lazy to allocate inodes, and only
> get more (against free clusters to store the file itself) if it is
> necessary. The only drawback as I know, that XFS never gives back these
> inode clusters. This means, if you create millions of very small files,
> and after you delete them, you see your disk storage size shrink.
Reiserfs doesn't have "inodes", so it never reservers space for