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.
I don't see that ext3 would be any faster than ext2, possibly a tad slower since it's built on top of ext2 with additional journaling capabilites. When it does a full fsck, it's working with the underlying ext2 file system. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ The is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
