[ale] Again with the filesystem recovery SOLUTION?

[Jason Day]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:03:03PM -0600, ChangingLINKS.com wrote:
> Please give 3 benefits of ext3 over ext2 or xfs. I admit, that I usually take 
> the quicker and easier way to the solution. I was only using ext3 so that I 
> would not have to run fsck after rebooting after a crash - but now I know 
> that the cost of ext3 is not worth the reward.

I'm no expert, so I can't give nitty-gritty details of how one
filesystem might be better than another.  I have been using ext3 for
over a year without problems, so I can tell you what I've observed.

One benefit of ext3 over ext2 is the one you mention above, no fsck
after a crash.  I have also been under the impression that ext3 was
safer than ext2; that is, if there is a crash, you are less likely to
lose data with ext3 than with ext2.  I don't *know* if that's true, it's
just the impression I have.  It is also my impression that if there is a
problem with the filesystem, you are more likely to recover your data
with ext3 than ext2.  Again, I don't know this for a fact.  So there's
one, possibly three benefits of ext3 over ext2.

As for xfs, I've never used it.  But one advantage of ext3 over xfs is
that ext3 is forward and backward compatible with ext2.  You don't have
to reformat an ext2 partition to convert to ext3.  And if you need to
boot an older kernel, or put the drive into another box that doesn't
support ext3, no problem.  Just change the filesystem type in
/etc/fstab.

Jason
-- 
Jason Day                                       jasonday at
http://jasonday.home.att.net                    worldnet dot att dot net
 
"Of course I'm paranoid, everyone is trying to kill me."
    -- Weyoun-6, Star Trek: Deep Space 9
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale