filesystems

[_m3]

IMHO ist xfs ein wenig overkill, bei den patches die es braucht, damit es läuft ...
ad reiserfs:

ReiserFS has fast journaling, which means that you don't spend your life waiting for fsck every time your laptop battery dies, or the UPS for your mission critical server gets its batteries disconnected accidentally by the UPS company's service crew, or your kernel was not as ready for prime time as you hoped, or the silly thing decides you mounted it too many times today.

ReiserFS is based on fast balanced trees. Balanced trees are more robust in their performance, and are a more sophisticated algorithmic foundation for a filesystem. When we started our project, there was a consensus in the industry that balanced trees were too slow for filesystem usage patterns. We proved that if you just do them right they are better--take a look at the benchmarks. We have fewer worst case performance scenarios than other filesystems and generally better overall performance. If you put 100,000 files in one directory, we think its fine; many other filesystems try to tell you that you are wrong to want to do it.

ReiserFS is more space efficient. If you write 100 byte files, we pack many of them into one block. Other filesystems put each of them into their own block. We don't have fixed space allocation for inodes. That saves 6% of your disk.

http://www.namesys.com/