On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 19:49 +0100, Doofus wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 13:19 -0400, Curt Howland wrote: > > > > > >>My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say, > >>FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add > >>journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that > >>ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this. > >> > >> > > > >Actually, ext3 is *not* an add-on to ext2. They use the same on- > >disk structure, but the drivers share little code. > > > >ext3 might have started life as a patched ext2 driver, though. > > > > And is it possible (with a simple vfstab edit) to switch off the ext3 > journalling, thereby running it as ext2 with this new and original > code? And if so, is there any performance difference between the two?
ext2 is definitely faster than ext3. > Even if there isn't, what I'm thinking is it seems reasonable to assume > the new code is an improvement on the old (otherwise why bother), so why > are two lines of development being maintained for essentially the same > file system? Choice and flexibility. Remember, Linux runs on everything from wristwatches to mainframes. Besides, you can't "wipe" files on a journaling fs. So, you re- mount your ext3 partition as ext2, wipe the file(s) and then re- mount as ext3. Besides, I don't think there's much active development happening on ext2. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA "One of the pleasures of pessimism is that you are correct 90% of the time, and delighted when you are wrong." George Will -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
