[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: EXT3 Worries



Mark, et al.:

	The difference was not that great (6.2GB vs. 6.6GB), but that is in range of 10 percent. However, I am curious what if any parameters I might be able to tune (when I go to create my ext2 / 3) partition which can help? Remember for me, I must rebuild the partition anyway, any ideas?


Very Respectfully, 

Stuart Blake Tener, IT3, USNR-R, N3GWG 
Beverly Hills, California
VTU 1904G (Volunteer Training Unit) 
stuart bh90210 net 
west coast: (310)-358-0202 P.O. Box 16043, Beverly Hills, CA 90209-2043 
east coast: (215)-338-6005 P.O. Box 45859, Philadelphia, PA 19149-5859 

Telecopier: (419)-715-6073 fax to email gateway via www.efax.com (it's free!) 

JOIN THE US NAVY RESERVE, SERVE YOUR COUNTRY, AND BENEFIT FROM IT ALL. 

Saturday, August 04, 2001 10:33 AM

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	ext3-users-admin redhat com [mailto:ext3-users-admin redhat com]  On Behalf Of Mark Veinot
Sent:	Friday, August 03, 2001 4:37 PM
To:	ext3-users redhat com
Subject:	RE: EXT3 Worries

Quoting "IT3 Stuart B. Tener, USNR-R" 
<stuart bh90210 net>:

> Mark:
>
> 	Effectively what you are saying is that for my 
fileset, ReiserFS's
> algorithm is more efficient for storing those files?
>
> If balanced tree data structures are so efficient why 
have they not been
> used in ext3 then? In order to be compatible with 
ext2?

ReiserFS is likely more space efficient than ext2 for 
anyone's fileset - perhaps not by as much, but that's 
not the point.

I would wager that that's exactly the reason why a 
balanced tree isn't used in ext3. That would make it 
completely incompatible with ext2 and the effortless 
upgrade path that we now enjoy would dissappear.

-- Mark
------------------------------------
University - a box of academia nuts.









[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]