xfs v/s reiserfs storage

So, since I have to rebuild my mp3 library anyway, I thought I’d do a comparison between storing my mp3s on either reiserfs or xfs.  I already know that reiserfs is horrible for recovery, but hopefully I won’t need that.  Reiser is supposed to be good for storage because of the tail-packing thing, though.

I’ve recovered about 18GB of songs now, the biggest file is about 50MB; the average is about 8MB.  Somewhat surprisingly, the xfs filesystem (/mnt/a) actually is using less space to store the identical directory structure (artist/album/mp3).

 sauer@humpy:~$ for D in /srv/nfs4/music /mnt/a;
  do find $D | wc -l; done
 sauer@humpy:~$ du -ks /srv/nfs4/music /mnt/a
 12380231        /srv/nfs4/music
 12369836        /mnt/a
 sauer@humpy:~$ df -k /srv/nfs4/music /mnt/a
 Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
 52427196  12414684  40012512  24% /srv/nfs4/music
 52403200  12403660  39999540  24% /mnt/a
 sauer@humpy:~$ sed -n '/music/p' /proc/mounts
 /dev/mapper/idevol-music /srv/nfs4/music reiserfs rw,noatime 0 0
 /dev/mapper/idevol-music2 /mnt/a xfs rw,relatime,attr2,delaylog,logbsize=64k,sunit=128,swidth=384,noquota 0 0

So, since xfs also recovers faster and is more actively maintained, I’m switching to xfs.