Other Distros (NOT A FLAMEWAR TOPIC!!)
news at pointerstop.ca
Mon Apr 10 12:46:31 UTC 2006
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 09 April 2006 00:30, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> >>I remember the joys of configuring the inode density of my disk
>> >>(who the hell needs to configure that?!).
>> > Anyone using ext2/ext3?
>> Only if you plan to have a gazillion files that are no bigger than
>> a few Kb. Not the most typical scenario.
I thought Reiser was actually _better_ for lots of small files.
>> > That's the main reason I use ReiserFS. The other reason is not
>> > having to suffer through fsck every x mounts
>> ReiserFS doesn't require fsck? I'd like to hear more.
> It does fsck, but not in a rigid pattern like ext3 does. At boot time
> the file system is checked and fsck is run if and only if required.
> As I understand it, an fsck only needs to be done if the journal
> indicates that data wasn't committed to disk such as in a power
> outage or other interruption. The data is already in the journal so
> the write can be completed.
> fsck'ing every x mounts just in case ext3-style feels wrong to me.
Well, that's not really ext3 style - it's ext2 style. It's just that
converting to ext3 doesn't change those defaults. When I did use ext3 I
turned that off without any (apparent) problem.
More information about the ubuntu-users