On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:32:32AM -0500, Oleg wrote: | Hi | | Can anyone who is very familiar with these FS types summarize their | relative features in terms of | | a) quality (bug content) I haven't experienced a bug with ext3 yet (or ext2 for that matter). | b) reliability (resistence to HD failures and system crashes) ext3 is more resistant to system crashes than ext2. You won't necesarily lose less data, but you will avoid filesystem corruption. This means that existing files will still be existing files as they were, though new files/data my not be stored to disk yet. | c) speed for workstation use ext2 and ext3 are just fine for me. | d) compatibility (is it possible to convert from one FS type to another) ext3 is just ext2 with a journal added (in a "hidden" .journal file). If you have an older kernel without ext3 support you can still mount the fs as ext2 and ignore without the journal at that point. Then you can mount it later as ext3 (with a kernel that supports it). AFAIK the other systems are not in any way compatible/interchangeable with others. HTH, -D -- "...Deep Hack Mode--that mysterious and frightening state of consciousness where Mortal Users fear to tread." (By Matt Welsh) http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
Attachment:
pgpcz4F2T3b3t.pgp
Description: PGP signature