On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 10:24:41PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:49:58AM +0100, Jan Minar wrote: > | On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:51:26PM -0500, xucaen wrote: > | > hi all, just looking for information here; why use ext3 journaling > | > fs instead of ext2? > | > | Because 3 > 2. > > LOL! >
same here! :-D > I use ext3 for main partitions so that if the power fails, I be likely > to have a corrupt filesystem. I still use ext2 for /boot, for > example, because it is small (therefore the journal's overhead is more > expensive) and it isn't updated very frequently and so the probability so would you say it's ok to not use ext3 on smaller drive, lets say a 2 gb drive? > > As for ext3 vs $OTHER_JOURNALLED_FS, I already had ext2 disks with > data, so moving to ext3 was easy and painless. Moving to anything > else wouldn't have been so simple. > > -D Is there a way to convert an existing drive from ext2 to ext3 without loss of data? (kinda like partition magic?) jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
