Wiki page - which file system in sd card?
fernando at cmartins.nl
Sun Feb 1 18:25:30 CET 2009
arne anka wrote:
>> systems. Since not many people are recommending reiserfs nowadays due to
>> lack of maintenance, regardless of being considered better than ext2/3,
>> ext3 remains as the choice.
> it's not only "lack of maintenance" and reiserfs is not "considered to be
> better" (by whom?)!
I was just trying to keep it simple: I could say "general lack of
support", "lack of commitment from the community". I believe Hans Reiser
was not keen on supporting reiserfs since he preferred people to use to
reiser4. As you Suse, moved from reiserfs to ext3. Thus "lack of
maintenance" does not seem incorrect to me. If you prefer another
As for the "better", unfortunately I don't have any benchmarks but I can
look for it when I have more time. I can say for sure by my own
experience that reiserfs compared to ext3 with a minimal journal and
same block size, does take significantly more space. Sufficiently so for
me to move 100GB or so of data from ext3 to reiserfs. I don't remember
all the details since it was already several years ago.
Oh, and you said Suse moved to ext3, from reiserfs, right? I assume they
preferred it over ext3 before they had to move to ext3 for other likely
> the best you could say is, that opinions are divided on the subject.
> ext3 has a long history of kernel support compared to reiserfs -- if
> reiserfs would be considered better, ext3 would not have gained the
> attrention it got -- there's no natural choice.
> even suse, a long term supporter and co-developer of reiser switched to
> ext3 -- and certainly not due to lack of maintenance.
Well, I understand Suse was doing some maintenance but without namesys
fully committed to it and the head developer not available, I think
those reasons were more than sufficient to drop it. Not many technical
reasons needed I think.
> the choice depends entirely on the given circumstances and personal
> preferences -- the biggest obstacle for reiser would be that the available
> kernels do not support it imo.
> would be interesting, to ask, why not, btw.
Ah! someone mentioned using reiserfs for sd cards, so I assumed it was
supported by open moko kernels.
Then I would prefer to change the text and simply mention reiserfs is
>> But even if you use ext3 in the SD Card you should be able to have
>> access to it through the USB interface, instead of feeding the acrd
>> directly into the PC SD reader.
> huh? what is that supposed to mean and what does ext3, compared to other
> fs, have to do with accessing the sd card through usb (as opposed to what?
> wlan? bluetooth?).
Well, on the list someone pointed out that the universality of FAT was
not so relevant because if you wanted to access the data from a Windows
machine it would be better to use USB instead of removing the card and
inserting it in the Windows PC reader.
> anyway, thanks for the effort to compile a wiki entry! ;-)
No problem, unfortunately the subject does seem to bring some amount of
subjectivity, maybe even emotion. (it's time consuming and complex to
get hard facts on comparing file systems).
More information about the community