Joe Terranova on 20 Feb 2009 13:08:50 -0800 |
>> I'd be interested in learning why ext3 is a poor choice as well... > > Actually, it was me who said to Adam that I thought ext3 was perhaps > not the best choice for such a large external drive. (I never said > "poor"). I was wondering if a different journaling system would be > more appropriate, for speed mostly, and also perhaps for size of > partition. I said I thought I had heard that one of the other choices > (such as XFS) might be better. Not ResierFS, which I personally had > problems with in the past, and I am unsure of it's continued > development). Well the problem with journaling is that each write goes like this*: write it to the journal write it to the main filesystem remove it from the journal It's 2 writes and a delete instead of one write, so you're actually sending the data twice. That would be why it'd be a problem. Using ext2 would give faster write speeds. So on slower hardware (old PCs, and usb hard drives) or hardware where 2 writes is detrimental (SSDs), a non-journaling file-system would be faster. > So it was more of a question than a pronouncement. I've been told that > ext3 is ext2 with journalling added in. And perhaps using a FS > designed from the start as a journalling system would be a better > choice. I actually like that about ext3. It means you can use it with drivers / OSes that only support ext2. For that matter, ext4 is just ext3 plus extra stuff. * I am not an expert on journaling file systems. This might be completely false. Joe Terranova ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
|
|