| Matthew Rosewarne on 19 Feb 2007 00:04:43 -0000 |
|
On Sunday 18 February 2007 15:06, Stephen Brown wrote: > For your uses on a laptop, unless you are doing something out of the > ordinary like > - over a few hundred files per directory > - massive churn in the filesystem (lots of files added and deleted) > - video (mythtv) > - or tens of thousands of files per filesystem > I would stick with the simple ext3. It is not as fast as jfs or xfs, but > pretty much any rescue disk you pick up will be able to access the drive > and for a laptop you are not talking about extreme performance storage > anyway. Well, the two concerns with a laptop are: it's not as fast as a workstation, so performance should not be thrown away The more you spin the disk & use the CPU, the shorter the battery life From what I've seen & heard, I think I'll go with JFS on the laptop, since it has almost the speed of XFS, but must less CPU usage. For my servers & workstations, I think XFS is probably a good choice, but ext3 is going to be the only option on my backup server. Hopefully that combination can provide satisfactory performance and reliability. Attachment:
pgpZI7vQPfHTf.pgp ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|