On 01/06/10 14:41, Les Mikesell wrote: > Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: >> On 05/30 04:12 , Michael Stowe wrote: >>> It's generally slower, so I'm going to go with "no" on this one. >> >> > From the tests I've seen, ext2 is notably faster than ext3. Not doing >> journaling does make a difference. >> >> If you wanted to speed up ext3; you can put the journal on a separate device >> (even an SSD). This may make a measurable difference; but I haven't tried it >> myself. > > The killer with ext2 is that if you crash you have to do a complete fsck > before > coming back up which will take hours on a large backuppc filesystem. With > ext3 > normally the journal takes care of this. >
That's what I suspected. I might give ext2 a try once the effects of my recently-enabled checksum caching have kicked in. cheers Chris -- Chris Dennis cgden...@btinternet.com Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
