Ray Rashif wrote:
I wouldn't even recommend upgrading from an fs even in the same
family. I chose to use ext4 as soon as it got pushed to mainline, but
it coincided with a new installation at that time so it was fresh. I
faced some funny quirks like config files being lost (was on the
headlines and got fixed sometime later).
Right now the one issue I know of is /boot on ext4, using GRUB. Your
distribution or packager has to patch GRUB.
Yes. I succesfully upgraded to grub2 before I attempted ext4 migration.
I'm now also running grub2 on Debian Sid (but too afraid of ext4).
With regards to the fs itself, it's wonderful now. I have a big fat /
on it, so.. :)
I think I probably would have been fine with a clean install but my
trust in the tune2fs/fsck migration procedure is very much much less now
(plus the issue with broken recovery shell with ubuntu/upstart).
I also read that if you choose the ext3 upgrade path, you do not get the
benefits from extents for your existing files (only newly created files
use extents) as they are not migrated.
I was initially attracted by the excellent benchmark figures. ext4 is
much faster than ext3 and even beats XFS in most of the benchmarks.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ext4_benchmarks&num=1
I guess with both Fedora 11 and Ubuntu 9.10 using ext4 as default fs for
new installs, there will soon be a lot more reports on its stability.
~mc
_______________________________________________
LUGS Mailing list - [email protected]
List FAQ: http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq
Info page: http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
To unsubscribe send an empty email to: [email protected]
