| 1 |
On Sunday 08 November 2009 04:46:50 William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 12:05 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > BTW is Ext2 the best fs for this machine ? Might Ext3 or Ext4 be better |
| 5 |
> > ? -- I use Reiserfs on my desktop machines. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Have you tried fsk on it? - "man e2fsck" |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The last question is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" |
| 10 |
> question. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> My personal experience is ext2 is only for those occasions you dont |
| 13 |
> value the data at all :) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> ext3 isnt much better unless you use "data=journal" to get some basic |
| 16 |
> protection. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That turns on the journal which will wear out an SSD in short order, so ext2 |
| 19 |
is indeed the better file system |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> But instead of fiddling with such (deleted disparaging comment) file |
| 22 |
> systems, use reiserfs though this may need a complete reinstall . |
| 23 |
> Updates are still occuring to the reiserfs code in the kernel, so |
| 24 |
> reiserfs is not abandoned by any means. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I use reiser everywhere else but not on my netbook. Have you used it on an SSD |
| 27 |
and if so, what results did you get |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> ext4, reiserfs4, btfs and the like are too new for me, though I like the |
| 30 |
> look of btfs. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
All conventional filesystems are built in such a way as to suit rotating disk |
| 33 |
media. Not surprising, as those were the only disks available for many a year. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
SSDs however, are very different, especially the cheap nasty controllers that |
| 36 |
go into netbooks. I think one should be willing to experiment with those, see |
| 37 |
what comes up. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives