Re: OT: Comparison of filesystems
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?
ext2 is definitely faster than ext3.
> 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?
Choice and flexibility. Remember, Linux runs on everything from
wristwatches to mainframes.
Besides, you can't "wipe" files on a journaling fs. So, you re-
mount your ext3 partition as ext2, wipe the file(s) and then re-
mount as ext3.
Besides, I don't think there's much active development happening
on ext2.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
"One of the pleasures of pessimism is that you are correct 90% of
the time, and delighted when you are wrong."
George Will
Reply to: