Slower performance with ext4

[fyrbrds at netscape.net]

  >Data loss anyone?<
What evidence do you have that there would be data loss? ext2 and ext3 were used almost immediately after their release as well. The distro maintainers usually do some basic reliability tests or at least have access to such tests. So I would be happy to read any tests you've seen that suggest ext4 is unreliable. To start scaring people with talk of data loss based on random speculation would not be good. 

Regards,

John

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk>
To: ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 11:30 am
Subject: Re: Slower performance with ext4










Raphael wrote:
> But isn't the default filesystem for ubuntu ext4, and isn't it the default for 
a reason?
>   

/me rotfl. On RHEL/Centos, ext3 is the only filesystem available. Not 
sure if they will offer ext3 + ext4 with RHEL6. Why?

ext4 is an unproven filesystem.  Not like ext3 and jfs. 
XFS codebase is so blooming big, I am not sure that it will ever reach 
the state that ext3 and jfs currently are.

> Sent from my iPod
>
> On 30-Oct-2009, at 2:42 PM, Christopher Chan <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> 
wrote:
>
> Raphael wrote:
>
>
> Help, after I had clean installed Karmic on my ext4 partition, the 
> performance was significantly slower compared to ext3. Startup was 
> around 7 secs but with ext4 it's now 20 secs application speeds are 
> also slower. 
> jfs! jfs! jfs!
>
>   


-- 
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20091030/ab0c5d84/attachment.html>