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@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org