Why is lack of the reiser option seen as a problem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 16, 2006 03:55 AM
I think the reviewer needs to set his personal bias aside when talking about the inavailability of reiser by default in the fedora installer. And if he must talk about it as a failing.. i think its only responsible to counter his personal bias which the fedora project's stated reasons as to why its not available by default. Let readers agree or disgree with which opinion they trust more.
I would encourage the reviewer to take a look at how much effort SuSe puts into downstream patches to keep rieserfs working in their kernels and ask the SuSe developers why they aren't they agreesively moving their patchsets upstream into the mainline kernel. Is the linux community best served by ecouranging the use of a filesystem that does not have robust upstream support in the mainline kernel?
MYTH - Fedora should use an alternative default filesystem FACT - Fedora supports ext3 as the default filesystem because it is robust, and provides excellent performance for the normal range of systems and workloads.
Some alternative filesystems are designed to provide specialized management features and optimized performance for large-scale systems, but these do not provide greater performance than ext3 on standard PC hardware. The xfs, reiserfs, and jfs filesystems are available as experimental installation options for those users and developers with advanced requirements. We welcome participation by interested developers to improve support for these filesystems.
The Reiser4 filesystem is still in development by Namesys, and does not currently fully support several key features required by Fedora users, including SELinux, ACLs (Access Control Lists), and NFS (Network File System).
Namesys continues to maintain version 3 of the Reiser filesystem, but development is now focused on version 4. Version 3 of the Reiser filesystem also lacks robust support for ACLs and SELinux.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Why is lack of the reiser option seen as a problem
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2006 03:55 AMI would encourage the reviewer to take a look at how much effort SuSe puts into downstream patches to keep rieserfs working in their kernels and ask the SuSe developers why they aren't they agreesively moving their patchsets upstream into the mainline kernel. Is the linux community best served by ecouranging the use of a filesystem that does not have robust upstream support in the mainline kernel?
<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraMyths" title="fedoraproject.org">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraMyths</a fedoraproject.org>
MYTH - Fedora should use an alternative default filesystem
FACT - Fedora supports ext3 as the default filesystem because it is robust, and provides excellent performance for the normal range of systems and workloads.
Some alternative filesystems are designed to provide specialized management features and optimized performance for large-scale systems, but these do not provide greater performance than ext3 on standard PC hardware. The xfs, reiserfs, and jfs filesystems are available as experimental installation options for those users and developers with advanced requirements. We welcome participation by interested developers to improve support for these filesystems.
The Reiser4 filesystem is still in development by Namesys, and does not currently fully support several key features required by Fedora users, including SELinux, ACLs (Access Control Lists), and NFS (Network File System).
Namesys continues to maintain version 3 of the Reiser filesystem, but development is now focused on version 4. Version 3 of the Reiser filesystem also lacks robust support for ACLs and SELinux.
#