Wiki page - which file system in sd card?
billk at iinet.net.au
Mon Feb 2 01:44:28 CET 2009
On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 15:03 +0100, 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?)!
> 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.
I have to disagree here - because my own opinion is that ext2/3 are not
the best for every purpose, and are demonstrably a poor choice for OSM
maps on an SD card for instance.
Last I heard reiserfs3 is still being maintained, and it has some real
advantages for OSM maps (reiserfs doesnt have inode limits like ext2/3
does), and is much faster (against ext3). The reason you give "if
reiserfs would be considered better, ext3 would not have gained the
attrention it got" is not valid - politics and personal animosity
between the reiserfs developer and the ext2/3 devs played a huge part
with the ext2/3 devs having the inside run and able to play politics
more effectively (both side are not blameless here) - the history is out
there for all to see. The decision wasnt based on technical merits but
who played politics better as far as I can see.
There is a certain amount of YMMV with file system choices depending on
your usage scenarios, but personally I would really like to use reiserfs
and dump ext2/3 and all the problems they cause on the FR (lost
data/corrupted filesystems, slow performance, ...) that I have.
More information about the community