Well, I'm not so worried about crashes, the only crashes I've had with BSD are with power failures, and this is a notebook :-)
I was planning on having three "slices" on the drive, the first I would blast from a linux or BSD image as needed, the second would be ext2 or ext3 (or other?) and have "/home", and the third would be my "/data" mount point, where I'd keep a synced copy of my Windows "My Documents" Folder (synced with my BSD desktop and my windows machine), as well as choice music files (it's too small for all that FLAC). Thanks -Jim On 7/1/06, RW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"