Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2859 mails)

[Bob S <911@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 02 May 2007 22:58, M Harris wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 May 2007 21:35, Bob S wrote:
> > I am just curious as to why anyone would make statements about
> > ext2 &3 being an insane FS.
>
>         heh, insane is of course an extreme word... mostly intended for humor...
> like calling M$  e v i l .....
>
>         You will notice the the speed difference under load of course.
>
>         However, the *big* insanity of ext2 ext3 is the wasted disk space. Now, it
> must also be said (in fairness) that the disk partition must be 30-40 megs
> large just to hold the journal (for reiserfs). Aside from that overhead...
> the fixed cluster size of ext2 ext3 makes the fs insane... from a modern
> perspective.
>
>         Stable was a poor word choice... sorry.  The better word would be
> reliable. The reiserfs is much more reliable from a recovery standpoint.
> The ext2 ext3 is more likely to get hammered than reiserfs, and recovery
> for a not clean disk shutdown is faster (way faster esp for large disks)
> for reiserfs.  The only advantage that I can see for ext3 is that the fs
> journals both the meta data and the data, whereas reiserfs only journals
> the meta data... which of course is usually what gets clobbered.   Bottom
> line, size and speed make ext3 less desireable... ok, maybe not insane. 
> :-))
OK ....Points taken. Thanks for your opinions.

Bob S.
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx