On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 at 06:59 GMT, cr penned: > > Thanks everybody for your input. > > As it happens, all my partitions are ext2 at the moment (except for > some FAT16's but we needn't go into that ;) > > I'm contemplating swapping some of 'em to ext3, I was just wondering > if the pluses outweight the minuses. It appears as if they do. > > It does reassure me, though, that if I happen to run/install a kernel > that doesn't have ext3, I can use ext2 if necessary. > > Regards > > cr (the OP) >
There was a link to an article on slashdot today comparing various journaling FSes. Apparently (I just read the comments, not the actual article, like the typical /. reader), ext3 is pretty much el crapola compared to the rest of them when it comes to performance. But for me, my machine doesn't need to be bleeding-edge fast; I would much prefer the reassurance that I can boot off of just about anything and have my drive be recognized. OTOH, I just was told by my fiance, who follows the linux kernel mailing list (and if you think this place is busy ...) and says that the study was not all that reliable. So ... eh, whatever. ext3 has been working for me for about a year or so. -- monique Unless you need to share ultra-sensitive super-spy stuff with me, please don't email me directly. I will most likely see your post before I read your mail, anyway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
