>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of >Aleksander Adamowski >Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:52 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Cooker] Why ext3fs is a default fs, not ReiserFS? > > >In the 9.0 installer, during the "Setup filesystem" stage, when you >create a new partition, by default its filesystem type is tset >to ext3fs. > >Now I have to tell all the newbie converts that install Linux to >manually change it to ReiserFS, because it is a more advanced >filesystem. Don't do that. I had one bad incident (stepped in the power cable) and the _complete_ reiserfs partition was unusable, after multiple attempts at recovery I had lost much more time to recover a few unimportant files than if I had went straight to a new installation (fortunately the box didn't contain any really important stuff). I had quite some "accidents" with ext2 due to experimenting with hardware and using a known broken mobo etc. but they were never that bad and I've yet to see data loss with ext3.
>After all, ext3 is just ext2 with a journal strapped-on. ReiserFS is a >new vision to filesystem design. And it is faster. > >If they just used the defaults, they'd probably be disappointed with >Linux "because it it slower than my Windows". Yes, ext2 and ext3 are >slower than FAT16/32. I beg to differ. My very same box with Linux is _so_ much faster at file access than Windows with FAT, regardless of whether I'm using reiser, ext2 or ext3 under Linux. You'll notice when repeatedly accessing the same files. Win98 just does such a bad job at caching. -Malte
