On Wednesday 02 May 2007 22:58, M Harris wrote: > 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. > :-)) OK ....Points taken. Thanks for your opinions.
Bob S. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
