[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: upgrade to ext3 ?



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: pgpwkKyREH1lZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: