|
 |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> I didn't even try the other Linux file systems.
>
> I use ReiserFS for all my linux partitions. Besides being journaled,
> it's more compact than many other FSs because it packs file tails into
> single sectors. (In other words, if the data in the last sector of two
> files would fit in a single sector, ReiserFS puts then into the same
> sector.)
That's handy. (The difference between ext2 and ext3 is that ext3 is
journaled. You can even switch back and forth between the two of them by
essentially deleting or creating the journal file.)
> One disadvantage of ReiserFS is that to run reiserfsck the partition
> must be read-only. This means that if you need to run it on your main
> partition you'll have to boot to single-user mode and remount the
> partition to read-only before you can run reiserfsck.
I'm pretty sure that's true of ext3, also. Indeed, I'm not sure I know
any file system you can check for consistency while it's in use. (Not if
you want to actually correct flaws, at least.)
Does it work to set /forcefsck and reboot, or do you actually have to be
sitting there to do it?
> Another minor (in my case very minor) quirk is that deleting very
> large files can take some time (in the order of several seconds),
> unlike with some other FSs where file deletion happens instantaneously.
Yeah. I've had files large enough that it takes literally minutes to
delete on ext3, so that's no surprise either. Ext3 actually stores a
list of blocks the file occupies, even if they're contiguous, so
deleting a 500-gig file is going to take time just looking up all the
blocks it's on.
I just used ext3 because it was the default and I had to get stuff
working before I knew as much as I do now. It turns out it's one of the
more poorly-performing file systems available.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
