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

RE: EXT3 Worries



Dr. Tweedie:

	I was using EXT2 when I compared it against ReiserFS. So, since it was EXT2 (as supplied by Mandrake 8.0), and not EXT3, then why was there still this differential in space between EXT2 and ReiserFS? The space differential was like 6.0 vs. 6.4 or something close to that.



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. 

Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:10 AM

-----Original Message-----
From: ext3-users-admin redhat com [mailto:ext3-users-admin redhat com]On Behalf Of Stephen C. Tweedie
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:52 PM
To: ext3-users redhat com
Subject: Re: EXT3 Worries

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 03:50:42PM -0700, IT3 Stuart B. Tener, USNR-R wrote:

>       Effectively what you are saying is that for my fileset, ReiserFS's algorithm is more efficient for storing those files?

Yes.  Reiserfs has tail-merging, which merges the wasted space at the
end of different files into a single disk block. 

> If balanced tree data structures are so efficient why have they not been used in ext3 then? In order to be compatible with ext2?

It has nothing to do with balanced trees.  There is an implementation
of tail-merging for ext2, and I hope that that will be integrated into
ext3 at some point.  But yes, the main reason it has not been done so
far is for compatibility.

Cheers,
 Stephen






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