On Friday 30 June 2006 17:44, Jim Stapleton wrote: > I have to move between BSD and Linux on one system quite a bit, and I > was wondering if there were any reasons to avoid EXT3 on a filesystem > (such as /dev/ad0s1), as opposed to using the more standard BSD setups > (such as UFS on /dev/ad0s1a)? I'm thinking mostly in terms of > reliability, but also in terms of flexibility and speed.
I haven't tried recently, but a year or so ago FreeBSD could not use ext3 as such. There is a port that adds ext3 fsck support for syncing the journal, FreeBSD can then mount it as ext2. The problem with that is that you then have a choice between reliability and decent write speed according to whether you mount it synchronously or asynchronously. I found that even having an ext3 transfer partition that's mounted by default was a bit of a pain, because without a journal or softupdates, booting after a crash can take a long time. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"