* Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?
2013-10-03 9:55 ` Kerin Millar
@ 2013-10-03 12:08 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2013-10-03 16:32 ` Kerin Millar
2013-10-03 12:15 ` Peter Humphrey
2013-10-03 12:49 ` Pandu Poluan
2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2013-10-03 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Am 03.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Kerin Millar:
> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>
>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box
>>> for /var,
>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for
>>> /usr/portage and
>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>
>>
>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>
>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>
>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>
> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL
> (big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated
> compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL:
and that one was solved when - 4-5 years ago?
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>
>
> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
> addressed I do not know.
>
> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>
why don't you mention that reiserfs used barriers by default - and ext3
did not. Just to look good at 'using defaults benchmarks' (like
phoronix)? I mean, if we are digging around in history.... and btrfs is
still broken in my regards...
tmpfs is the filesystem of choice for /tmp or /var/tmp/portage.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?
2013-10-03 12:08 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2013-10-03 16:32 ` Kerin Millar
2013-10-03 18:50 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Kerin Millar @ 2013-10-03 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On 03/10/2013 13:08, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 03.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Kerin Millar:
>> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>>
>>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box
>>>> for /var,
>>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for
>>>> /usr/portage and
>>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>>
>>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
>>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
>>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>>
>>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
>>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>>
>> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL
>> (big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated
>> compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL:
>
> and that one was solved when - 4-5 years ago?
Consider the manner in which the hard requirement on the BKL was
removed, then objectively argue that its "deep use of the specific
properties of the BKL" did not necessitate what would quite reasonably
be described as a compromise.
>
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>>
>>
>> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
>> addressed I do not know.
>>
>> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
>> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
>> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>>
>
> why don't you mention that reiserfs used barriers by default - and ext3
> did not. Just to look good at 'using defaults benchmarks' (like
> phoronix)? I mean, if we are digging around in history.... and btrfs is
> still broken in my regards...
Because none of this passive aggressive rhetoric would have had any
meaningful context within the content of my previous post.
>
> tmpfs is the filesystem of choice for /tmp or /var/tmp/portage.
--Kerin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?
2013-10-03 16:32 ` Kerin Millar
@ 2013-10-03 18:50 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Volker Armin Hemmann @ 2013-10-03 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Am 03.10.2013 18:32, schrieb Kerin Millar:
> On 03/10/2013 13:08, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Am 03.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Kerin Millar:
>>> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box
>>>>> for /var,
>>>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for
>>>>> /usr/portage and
>>>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>>>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>>>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>>>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>>>
>>>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>>>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it
>>>> needs
>>>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer
>>>> but in
>>>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>>>
>>>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>>>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use
>>>> should
>>>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>>>
>>> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL
>>> (big kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated
>>> compromise when the time came to eliminate the BKL:
>>
>> and that one was solved when - 4-5 years ago?
>
> Consider the manner in which the hard requirement on the BKL was
> removed, then objectively argue that its "deep use of the specific
> properties of the BKL" did not necessitate what would quite reasonably
> be described as a compromise.
>
>>
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
>>> addressed I do not know.
>>>
>>> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
>>> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
>>> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>>>
>>
>> why don't you mention that reiserfs used barriers by default - and ext3
>> did not. Just to look good at 'using defaults benchmarks' (like
>> phoronix)? I mean, if we are digging around in history.... and btrfs is
>> still broken in my regards...
>
> Because none of this passive aggressive rhetoric would have had any
> meaningful context within the content of my previous post.
while your message had no meaningful context within this thread at all.
Oh look, there was a data eating bug in XFS X years ago. Or oh look,
some very heavy patching was done in ext4 over the time....
are just as meaning- and helpful as your message:
not at all.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?
2013-10-03 9:55 ` Kerin Millar
2013-10-03 12:08 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
@ 2013-10-03 12:15 ` Peter Humphrey
2013-10-03 12:49 ` Pandu Poluan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Peter Humphrey @ 2013-10-03 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Thursday 03 Oct 2013 10:55:12 Kerin Millar wrote:
> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail
> packing. Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue
> that was supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
If I remember aright, I started using ReiserFS before ext4 was released. It
seemed at the time to offer better performance than ext3 for many small files
(portage tree) and for large ones (source files), so I used it for those
purposes. If those advantages have now disappeared, it looks like time to
switch to ext4 for everything other than /boot, which is still ext2 here.
> In general, I would recommend ext4 or xfs as the go-to filesystems these
> days.
Thanks for your comments, Kerin. And others who contributed too.
--
Regards,
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] which filesystem is more suitable for /var/tmp/portage?
2013-10-03 9:55 ` Kerin Millar
2013-10-03 12:08 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2013-10-03 12:15 ` Peter Humphrey
@ 2013-10-03 12:49 ` Pandu Poluan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Pandu Poluan @ 2013-10-03 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kerin Millar <kerframil@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/09/2013 16:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> On 18/09/2013 16:05, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 18 Sep 2013 14:52:30 Ralf Ramsauer wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my opinion, reiser is a bit outdated ...
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the significance of its date? I use reiserfs on my Atom box for
>>> /var,
>>> /var/cache/squid and /usr/portage, and on my workstation for /usr/portage
>>> and
>>> /home/prh/.VirtualBox. It's never given me any trouble at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sooner or later, reiser is going to bitrot. The ReiserFS code itself
>> will not change, but everything around it and what it plugs into will
>> change. When that happens (not if - when), there is no-one to fix the
>> bug and you will find yourself up the creek sans paddle
>>
>> An FS is not like a widget set, you can't really live with and
>> workaround any defects that develop. When an FS needs patching, it needs
>> patching, no ifs and buts. Reiser may nominally have a maintainer but in
>> real terms there is effectively no-one
>>
>> Circumstances have caused ReiserFS to become a high-risk scenario and
>> even though it might perform faultlessly right now, continued use should
>> be evaluated in terms of that very real risk.
>
>
> Another problem with ReiserFS is its intrinsic dependency on the BKL (big
> kernel lock). Aside from hampering scalability, it necessitated compromise
> when the time came to eliminate the BKL:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8ebc423
>
> Note the performance loss introduced by the patch; whether that was
> addressed I do not know.
>
> In my view, ReiserFS is only useful for saving space through tail packing.
> Unfortunately, tail packing makes it slower still (an issue that was
> supposed to be resolved for good in Reiser4).
>
> In general, I would recommend ext4 or xfs as the go-to filesystems these
> days.
>
> --Kerin
>
XFS is honestly looking mighty good if your host has 8 cores or more:
http://lwn.net/Articles/476263/
If data corruption is *totally* not acceptable, and if you have more
than one disks of similar sizes, ZFS might even be more suitable.
Rgds,
--
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
• LOPSA Member #15248
• Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com
• Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread