On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:15:38 +0200 "Johann Spies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 02:06:22AM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Tim Dijkstra wrote: > > > > > Just curious (I'm not really into file systems): Why should I want > > > ext3 instead of ext2? Is it speed, stability? > > > > A little of both. > > I thought ext3 might be a little bit slower especially under heavy > load. It has got extra work to do. But I may be wrong... > > Another by product of ext3 is that you will have less disk space > available using ext3 than ext2 - also less than reiserfs. > Let I put the question differently: Is it recommended for me to upgrade the file systems on my desktop and 'small' server to ext3 or should I stick with ext2. Or is this really a "depends-can't say-see for yourself" question? Tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
