On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:28:53PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:48:42PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
> >> On 12/03/02 16:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Okay, now we're down to cases. ext3 is not immune to data loss, but it is
> > far less so than ext2. I don't have a terrabyte raid array to worry about,
> > so a "stupid time-consuming fsck" takes, oh, 10 minutes. Despite the
>
> Is ext3 faster than ext2? I have a 36gig drive the when the "mount count
> exceded" time comes up it takes 15-20 minutes to check but it's ext2.
Not that I know of. There are some benchmark tests you can do, but I
wouldn't expect to see much difference in terms of I/O performance.
I don't know about recovery (fsck) time.
Kurt
--
Nothing recedes like success.
-- Walter Winchell
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
