Biagio Lucini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seriously, you have given a partial view of what ext3 is. There are
> serious reasons to choose it in my view, among which:
> a) back compatibility with ext2 (conversion to and fro on the fly and
> possibility of mounting clean ext3 partitions as ext2)
> b) not that slow for "normal use" (another thing is the server side, but
> you where talking about windows newbies...)
> c) three different types of journaling (the reiserfs team is working AFAIK
> to similar things, but this is still under implementation)
d) ext3 has a much better fsck suite :
- currently, reiserfs / is never fcsked on boot if needed because
of broken fsck that refuse to check ro mounted fs (thought it
seems to have recently be fixed)
- reiserfsck don't handle std fsck's option set
> Mind you: when comparing speed, remember that in ext3 by default a
> more time consuming but also more secure journaling is
> implemented...
ext3 + htree patch is faster than reiserfs on *creating/deleting*
thousands of files in 2.5bk.
anyway, speed argument is, as most benchmarks, valid only regarding
what you want to do with your files (density per directory, usage
(mostly creation/deletion or reads, ...)
a news server, a mail server or a sgdb server have not the same
requires as most end users....
depending of your usage, this fs or that one can be better.
