| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Harry Putnam <reader@×××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I didn't want to derail the existing thread discussing ext4 with this |
| 3 |
> angle ... I'm guessing there may be comments that will not be helpful |
| 4 |
> to that OP. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm wondering what people running ext4 are seeing in practice that |
| 7 |
> makes it better than ext3 or reiserfs? Is it safer journalling? Faster |
| 8 |
> read/write? ... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I've thought about switching over too... especially every time I |
| 11 |
> `rm -rf' something big and it seems to take way longer than I'd like. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> (I run all reiserfs except ext2 for /boot) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
On my desktop, I'm using ext3 via ext4's driver (on-disk format is |
| 16 |
still ext3). There are theoretical improvements but I haven't noticed |
| 17 |
anything honestly. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
On my laptop I converted to actual ext4 format and don't notice |
| 20 |
anything different... I did not do any tests or take any measurements, |
| 21 |
but there was no "wow" factor or anything. It just works normally. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Both of these are single-user home computers. Maybe someone in a |
| 24 |
high-load environment has better ideas about it. |
Archives