Re: ati radeon 9700M and X

[Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>]

On 7 Sep 2004, Derek Broughton wrote:
> On September 7, 2004 09:21 am, Michael Olson wrote:
>> Tim Taubert <ttmails@gmx.de> writes:
>>> i'm sure i can select it at the installtion process, can't i? ... i
>>> crashed my whole system with this damn ati stuff.. dpkg is not working
>>> anymore.. ext2 gave up :) i have to re-install the system.. by the
>>> way.. is ext3 at any better than ext2?
>>
>> Yes, by all means, use ext3 (or reiserfs) instead of ext2.  These
>> other filesystems have journals, which means that you are much less
>> likely to lose data if the computer crashes or gets turned off
>> suddenly.  Reiserfs is supposed to be a bit faster than ext3, IIRC.
>
> Remember, though, ext3 is not really "better" than ext2 other than the
> presence of a journal.  

Absolutely. This is just like how a Porche is not really better than a
VW Beetle, except for the being a better car. :)

Seriously, I am not sure what features you expect from a filesystem, but
all of ext3, xfs and reiserfs have people who are very fond of them, and
they all meet the basic requirements for a journalling filesystem quite
well.

Each of them has drawbacks in some areas, when you compare it to the
others, and none of them is perfect.

All of them offer significant advantages over ext2, though, and that
advantage is not much more than the "presence of a journal."

Also, any journaled filesystem is slower at many things than a
non-journalled filesystem, since the presence of the journal adds choke
points and additional work.  In some ways, ext2 *is* better than any of
the others. :)

    Daniel
-- 
Sweet is pleasure after pain.
        -- John Dryden,  _Alexander's Feast_, 1697