On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:27:08 -0400 Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 25 September 2005 03:35 pm, Henrique de Moraes > Holschuh wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > For / , why not use ext3? > > > > Agreed. ext3 is stable, quite fast enough (IF you're > > using kernel 2.6 and enable all optionals) and it is > > extremely *safe*. AND it has the best set of recovery > > tools I know of, should you actually need them. > > > > If you are doing a proper install where / contains not > > much more than /etc, /lib, /sbin, /bin, /boot and a few > > other oddities (certianly not /home, /srv, /usr, /var > > or /tmp), then you really are better off using ext3 there > > for safety. > > I disagree. Could you tell me why you present this as fact? ext3 is a solid, very low-bug system. The on-disk structure is the same as that of ext2. Thus, all ext2 utilities work on it. *Every* rescue disk has ext2 support. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
