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. :-))
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
