Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 13:19 -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
My personal opinion is that anything "up to date" (as opposed to, say,
FAT12) will provide decent service for a desktop machine. I would add
journaling, which is why I also use ext3, but with the caveat that
ext3 is just an add-on to ext2. Performance demonstrates this.
Actually, ext3 is *not* an add-on to ext2. They use the same on-
disk structure, but the drivers share little code.
ext3 might have started life as a patched ext2 driver, though.
And is it possible (with a simple vfstab edit) to switch off the ext3
journalling, thereby running it as ext2 with this new and original
code? And if so, is there any performance difference between the two?
Even if there isn't, what I'm thinking is it seems reasonable to assume
the new code is an improvement on the old (otherwise why bother), so why
are two lines of development being maintained for essentially the same
file system?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]