Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote: > That's exactly my point. To do something better than my backup > solution, I would have needed to go with something less tested, with > less complete supporting software, and something I trust less than > ext4. I haven't had ext4 mess up on me in at least 6 years. Even ext2 > and ext3 messed up very rarely, and you could usually fix them with an > fsck. > > In other words, I prioritized the extreme amount of user testing of > ext4 over the obvious convenience of btrfs. My prioritization isn't > universal: In fact, I'm probably in the minority. But it's worked for > me.
Well you aren't alone, some of us still use EXT3 on the basis of "it works" ! Actually, at work a while ago some of the devs were experimenting with running Ubuntu with a Windoze VM on top. One had a problem and I found to my surprise that the disk that was used to install the system couldn't repair it ! It had defaulted to EXT4 for the installed system but didn't have any EXT4 repair tools on the disk. IIRC I had to boot it off a recent Debian or Knoppix disk to run fsck on it. I've gone into LVM and MD Raid - the latter having saved me many times from failing disks. But EXT3 has served me well and survived many an event - accidentally pulling the wrong plug and such like. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
