From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LSz57-0001N3-UR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:31:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A0F44E0517; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:31:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9161AE0517 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:31:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766A6265448 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:31:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:31:11 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: RvBv459OJtonWrjSlNoMkIfHVTVkEvrahcpOUtlJdJJN 1233343871 Received: from [10.11.243.204] (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [66.187.233.202]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3227E2DA59 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:31:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Ext4 another thread From: Albert Hopkins To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <87fxj0ljcy.fsf@newsguy.com> References: <87fxj0ljcy.fsf@newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Marduk Enterprises Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:31:13 -0500 Message-Id: <1233343873.2842.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 (2.24.3-1.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2aa9f764-3dc6-4676-be06-eb2c56f30a95 X-Archives-Hash: 1df20e5946a7c6c5bfb559174bfac9e7 On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 12:49 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote: > I didn't want to derail the existing thread discussing ext4 with this > angle ... I'm guessing there may be comments that will not be helpful > to that OP. > > I'm wondering what people running ext4 are seeing in practice that > makes it better than ext3 or reiserfs? Is it safer journalling? Faster > read/write? ... > > I've thought about switching over too... especially every time I > `rm -rf' something big and it seems to take way longer than I'd like. > > (I run all reiserfs except ext2 for /boot) Well it's new and new is always interesting (in good ways and bad ;). Large writes/deletes will be faster. If you don't do (a lot of) writes/deletes of large files then you won't notice (as much). Extents, better allocation/deallocation methods, and other added logic further makes improvements on files (esp large files). It will eventually support much larger filesystems and subsecond timestamps for those with the need. Depending on your usage you might see significant improvements or hardly any at all. Best way to know for sure is to try it out. Note however that on ext4 journal checksums are *on* by default (and off on ext3 iirc). So when you are comparing performance you should make that value the same for both for a fair comparison.