On Tue, 22 April 2008 11:28:19 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:02PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> 
> > Why xfs code is said to be 5 timed bigged than e.g. reiserfs?
> > Does it have to be that big?
> 
> If we cut the bulkstat code out, the handle interface, the
> preallocation, the journalled quota, the delayed allocation, all the
> runtime validation, the shutdown code, the debug code, the tracing
> code, etc, then we might get down to the same size reiser....

Just noticed this bit of FUD.  Last time I did some static analysis on
stack usage, reiserfs alone would blow away 3k, while xfs was somewhere
below.  Reiserfs was improved afaik, but I'd still expect it to be worse
than xfs until shown otherwise.

Maybe reiserfs simply isn't used that much in nfs+*fs+md+whatnot+scsi
setups?

Jörn

-- 
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that
something else is more important than fear.
-- Ambrose Redmoon
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/