Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > The bathtub curve also applies for software systems, in practice. When > you aim for realiability, you need to consider the general maintenance > state of the underlying kernel code (bitrot that crept in as other parts > of the kernel changed and evolved, general increase in how brittle the > code is due to accumulated maintenance, how much testing and attention > from developers it still gets, etc), not just filesystem features. > > In that sense, ext2 is not nearly as good a choice as it once was. A > newly created ext3 with default parameters (yes, that means it gets a > journal -- that's how it gets most use and most testing) is a better bet > nowadays as far as present and future reliability goes. Those are valid points. However I think you have discredited ext2 much too soon. It is still widely used. I think it unlikely that serious bugs would not get noticed. On the contrary I think it is widely used enough that bugs would be quickly noticed. Plus I rather think that because ext2 isn't glamorous that the code isn't getting creeping features added and that is a reason it remains stable. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature