Forum Moderators: bakedjake
I've felt it a bit slow. P3 800, Seagate 40G at ata100. It may be just my imagination, though.
For other people who have attempted it: what has been their long term experience? Is it worth to keep the filesystem this way, or is better to revert it to ext2?
Slow - YES, not hugely, and it could be my imagination also as I've not tested but, it certainly seems slower...
The one crash I had (not crash, unexpected power cut) was a pretty smooth recovery though....
Nick
You probably already know this but I have a question for you.
Why did you choose ext3?
Why did you choose ext3?
Quicker startup time; even when I have not crashes often, frequent boots prompt for filesystem checks. I'm not going to disable them. And, as I already mentioned, my whole disk is 40G: they were becoming a bit unconfortable.
Why not XFS or ReiserFS
It took me less than five minutes :)
The article about several filesystems is very helpful:
[www-106.ibm.com...]
I've actually stayed with it. The extra load has shown on the daily updatedb thing, but it's not too bad, and on daily using and, I think, even compiling (just built kde 3.1.2) it's not too much.
On the bright side, it works quite well. Power dies, UPS turns out to be dead, server dies, power comes back, server comes back. Re-playing the journal and checking the file system took practically no time, and there were no errors. :)
/dingman wanders off to see how long APC's warantee coverage lasts