Mark Hahn hahn at
Fri Aug 1 19:26:38 EDT 2003

> Which one is better to use, ext3 or raiserfs?

there is no clearcut winner.

> Someone have performance results comparing Ext3 with raiserfs?

yes, there's plenty available.  reiserfs people always focus on 
situations where directories have billions of small files.  that's 
not surprising, since that's their design target: efficient storage
of very small files, and efficient handling of ridiculously overfull
directories.  I question the value of worrying about very small
files (because disk is so cheap, and clusters mostly have big files);
big directories seem like someone's design mistake to me.

ext3 is designed as an ultra-stable journaling version of ext2,
and succeeds.  it's difficult to compare reliability, but ext3 does
generally have a better reputation than reiserfs.

Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit

More information about the Beowulf mailing list