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

Re: ext2 vs ext3 vs xfs vs reiserfs

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.


"...Deep Hack Mode--that mysterious and frightening state of
consciousness where Mortal Users fear to tread."
(By Matt Welsh)

Attachment: pgpESOifUmSzW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: