On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 01:26:49PM +0200, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:15:38 +0200 "Johann Spies" <jspies@sun.ac.za> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 02:06:22AM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > > > > > > > Just curious (I'm not really into file systems): Why should I > > > > want ext3 instead of ext2? Is it speed, stability? > > > > > > A little of both. > > > > I thought ext3 might be a little bit slower especially under heavy > > load. It has got extra work to do. But I may be wrong... > > > > Another by product of ext3 is that you will have less disk space > > available using ext3 than ext2 - also less than reiserfs. > > Let I put the question differently: Is it recommended for me to > upgrade the file systems on my desktop and 'small' server to ext3 or > should I stick with ext2. Or is this really a "depends-can't say-see > for yourself" question? I recently switched from ext2 to ext3, and I have had no negative side effects whatsoever. I am using it on a workstation which gets rebooted a lot, so the increased speed of fsck along with faster recovery in case of power-outs[1] is definitely worth it, even if ext3 is slightly slower then ext2 (which I am not even sure is the case). This of course, should be taken with a grain of salt, since I no next to nothing about the inner workings of ext2/ext3. [1] Obviously my workstation isn't connect to a UPS. -- Søren O.
Attachment:
pgpZOw87W7pKZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature