On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 19:49 +0100, Doofus wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 13:19 -0400, Curt Howland wrote: > > > > > >>My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say, > >>FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add > >>journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that > >>ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this. > >> > >> > > > >Actually, ext3 is *not* an add-on to ext2. They use the same on- > >disk structure, but the drivers share little code. > > > >ext3 might have started life as a patched ext2 driver, though. > > > > And is it possible (with a simple vfstab edit) to switch off the ext3 > journalling, thereby running it as ext2 with this new and original > code? And if so, is there any performance difference between the two? > Even if there isn't, what I'm thinking is it seems reasonable to assume > the new code is an improvement on the old (otherwise why bother), so why > are two lines of development being maintained for essentially the same > file system? yes, i believe it is possible to edit /etc/fstab. but not all things (like data recovery) are possible with a native ext3 mounted as a ext2 partition as are with a native ext2 partition. -- Matt Zagrabelny - mzagrabe@d.umn.edu - (218) 726 8844 University of Minnesota Duluth Information Technology Systems & Services PGP key 1024D/84E22DA2 2005-11-07 Fingerprint: 78F9 18B3 EF58 56F5 FC85 C5CA 53E7 887F 84E2 2DA2 He is not a fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. -Jim Elliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part