[Cialug] Linux Tweaks and Hacks

[David Champion]

I like to use reiserfs - I like the performance, and the quick recovery 
time on reboot. I've seen a couple of other benchmarks that support the 
reiserfs author's benchmarks. I have never had a reiserfs partition get 
corrupted so bad that it couldn't recover it.

ext3 does have one advantage - if the journal gets corrupted, you can 
just mount it as ext2. If both the filesystem data and the journal are 
corrupted, then you're in trouble.

-dc

Korver, Aaron wrote:

> As for file system benchmarks a quick search on Google brings up
> http://www.namesys.com/benchmarks.html.  Of course, this is from the maker
> of ReiserFS so take it with a bit of salt.  The full Google return can be
> found
> http://www.google.com/linux?hl=en&lr=&q=file+system+benchmarks&btnG=Google+S
> earch
> 
> Personally I use reiserfs for all my systems.
> 
> Here is another set of benchmarks which put JFS on top with Reiserfs second.
> http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html
> 
> Regardless, either is better than the old ext3.
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Nathan C. Smith [mailto:smith@ipmvs.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:42 AM
>>To: 'cialug@cialug.org'
>>Subject: [Cialug] Linux Tweaks and Hacks
>>
>>
>>
>>Anybody care to share their favorite performance tweaks for Linux?
>>
>>When I install a redhat-based system I like to use the 
>>reiserfs file system.
>>I feel like it gives better performance but I don't have any 
>>quantitative
>>evidence.
>>
>>At the installation prompt I enter 'linux enable reiserfs' 
>>and then during
>>the graphical partition set-up I edit the individual 
>>partitions and switch
>>them to reiserfs.
>>
>>Has there ever been a demonstration at a meeting on how to 
>>recompile the
>>kernel?  I compiled a new kernel on a 486 successfully in 
>>1998 and (three
>>days later) that was the last time I had any success (or 
>>exerted much effort
>>to try) even with all the neat new tools available to do it today.
>>
>>-Nate