On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 17:24 -0200, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: ... > but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by > default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop > usage), no? > ...
No, for me ext2 = continual lost data issues from even the smallest glitch. I had (up to a couple of weeks ago ext2 on a freerunner phone - almost daily data problems (a freerunner should be packed in foam - it crashes 2-3 times a day if you use it!), Since using ext3, the problems are drasticly reduced but still occur ever few days. Even VFAT has less problems that ext2, but ext3 is a little better. Note this is using the defaults - this conversation reminds me that I should look at this again. The only FS I have lost complete systems (2 laptops, flat batteries when not present) from were ext3, as well as continuous more minor corruption issues (love backups) reiserfs has had corruption issues in the past, but is currently very stable. Any issues that have developed have always been fixable with no lost data. I did run into a few repeatable issues with NFS - about 5 years ago. None since from this. A couple of minor issues with crashes, easily fixed and some hardware failures. I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file system. Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples experience almost assuredly wont be the same. BillK
