Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 118

Thread: Pushing Reiser4 Is "Not Of High Priority"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjcox View Post
    And like most males, the ability to be almost schizophrenic at will.
    Wow are you hanging around with the wrong crowd if you think "most males" are schizophrenic at will (trust me, I have dealt with actual people diagosed with schizophrenia).

  2. #32

    Default

    Reiser IV. Sounds like a bad horror movie title.


  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Main purpose of reiser4 was preparation for reiser5: Semantic data structuring per filesystem. This would have been the ground setting where ai could florish.

    On an google tech video I saw a talk about his vision: Like the container technology slim lined transportations by vanishing all media frictions, reiser4 can deliver the true unix philosophie as a filesystem: Everything is a file, even file attributes!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    Reiser IV. Sounds like a bad horror movie title.

    I think I love you.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default About btrfs

    I want reiser4 for 3 reasons..
    * Compression (just think of all the header files in /usr/include and /usr/share/doc)
    * Not CoW (Copy on write)
    * btrfs is backed by Oracle. I really don't trust Oracle

    Ext4's creator said that his fs is just something to use while waiting for btrfs.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admiral0 View Post
    I want reiser4 for 3 reasons..
    * Compression (just think of all the header files in /usr/include and /usr/share/doc)
    Disk is cheap, and if you really want compression....
    1) most large file formats incorporate compression,
    2) you can apply a filesystem compression overlay.

    FYI: those two paths, on my machine that I'm sitting at right now, consume under 1 GB of disk space. At last I checked, you could grab a 1 TB disk for about... $50. How much is this REALLY going to help you? Right... not worth the effort.

    * Not CoW (Copy on write)
    Eh?

    * btrfs is backed by Oracle. I really don't trust Oracle
    btrfs is GPL and built into the Linux kernel. If oracle tries to screw the world, their contributions will simply be rejected. In other words, it doesn't matter if you don't trust them... there is nothing they can do.

    FYI:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Tso
    people who really like reiser4 might want to take a
    look at btrfs; it has a number of the same design ideas that reiser3/4
    had --- except (a) the filesystem format has support for some advanced
    features that are designed to leapfrog ZFS, (b) the maintainer is not
    a crazy man and works well with other LKML developers (free hint: if
    your code needs to be reviewed to get in, and reviewers are scarce;
    don't insult and abuse the volunteer reviewers as Hans did --- Not a
    good plan!).

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Disk is cheap, and if you really want compression....
    1) most large file formats incorporate compression,
    2) you can apply a filesystem compression overlay.

    FYI: those two paths, on my machine that I'm sitting at right now, consume under 1 GB of disk space. At last I checked, you could grab a 1 TB disk for about... $50. How much is this REALLY going to help you? Right... not worth the effort.
    Nowadays compression is more about increased speed rather than saving space. With today's CPUs, compression overhead is negligible and it's much faster to read 10MB and uncompress it to 13MB than reading the original 13MB off the disk.

    This point of view was even popularized by games which installed their data compressed in .pak files rather than uncompressed. People then unpacked those files and noticed that loading times increased by a quite big amount. Compression was making disk accesses faster. Executable packers like UPX also resulted in lower loading times when running big executables.

    So compression is a cheap way to increased disk I/O speed.
    Last edited by RealNC; 10-18-2011 at 01:52 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admiral0 View Post
    I want reiser4 for 3 reasons..
    * Compression (just think of all the header files in /usr/include and /usr/share/doc)
    * Not CoW (Copy on write)
    * btrfs is backed by Oracle. I really don't trust Oracle
    While I don't agree to your points:
    1 disk space not a matter of todays
    2 CoW even better for lifetime of coming ssds, also I don't know how it is possible to edit a 4Gib video
    3 mainline kernel modules are havy guarded, peer reviewed.

    I wish we had reiser5 semantics in place:
    The real potential of kde assistive features could florish, not having nepomuk and strigi to run crippled databases

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ulenrich View Post
    While I don't agree to your points:
    1 disk space not a matter of todays
    At least bother to read the post directly above yours :-/

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,084

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    At least bother to read the post directly above yours :-/
    Look at the time stamps for the two posts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •