Ext3 resizing and performance

[Hervé Fache]

On 12/11/06, Gabriel Dragffy <dragffy at yandex.ru> wrote:
> I am impressed with ext3 although it doesn't appear to be the best
> choice in all situations for my desktop use it seems best. Only thing is
> that it doesn't make good use of the space on my HDD, once you take into
> account the block slack, the journal size (128mb defaults (on my drive)
> whereas reiser was 8mb and the huge chunk reserved for super user which
> I did reduce from 5% to just 2%. Still when usable capacity is cut by
> several gigabytes before even using it I can't help but feel hard done
> by. Especially since in the first place HDs are advertised as 100GB but
> really are only 95GB or whatever.

Last time I checked, Reiserfs was using 32 MiB for its journal, not 8.
Anyway, the capacity is not cut by several gigabytes, and you _do_
need a journal and an allocation table for _any_ fs.

Hard disks _are_ 100 GB when sold as 100 GB, just not 100 GiB (that
would be 107 MB), and I have the weakness to think that's good: G =
10^9, not 2^30.

Now stop moaning and enjoy your Ubuntu ;-)
Hervé.