On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 21:31:15 -0600, Paul E Condon (pecon...@mesanetworks.net) wrote:
> On 2009-03-08_23:15:43, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > Journaling uses significantly more disk space and does not allow for > > > deleted > > > file recovery. > > > > Neither is true. I believe you're confusing log-structured file systems > > and journalled file systems. > > > > > ext2 - for backup, removable, partitions rarely used, etc. > > > > ext2 is problematic for removable drives because if you remove the drive > > without cleanly unmounting it you risk losing your data. So I would > > recommend ext3 for such uses. Performance is rarely an issue, actually. > > > > > > Stefan > > That is a pretty persuasive argument. I can see the plug being pulled by > accident fairly often in the long run. ;-) > > I had pretty much decided the other way, but this, plus ... The drive is > already ext3, and wikipedia article mentions problems with reverting back > to ext2, which I would have to do. Sooooo----, I've decided to not change, > --- for now --- One good reason for using ext2 is to help reduce the number of disk writes - which if your USB drive is a flash memory device rather than a traditional hard disk might be considered important. Otherwise, it probably makes sense to do as you have decided and stick with ext3. -- Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, UK. Please reply to the list only. Do NOT send copies directly to me. Debian on the NSLU2: http://bobcox.com/slug/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
