From: Vincent Cunniffe (vincent at domain cunniffe.net)
Date: Tue 28 Aug 2001 - 22:19:16 IST
> On Tue, 2001-08-28 at 14:13, kevin lyda wrote:
>>summary (in speed order):
>> ext2 < jfs < xfs < ext3 < reiserfs
>>it really looks like ext3 will win out in the end however for home
>>user boxes. for newer servers, jfs looks best. on further thought
>>though it would seem like the following fs layout would be best:
>>/usr ext2 (optionally in ro mode)
>>app specific dirs (/var/lib/mysql, /var/www, etc) should be ext3/jfs
>>filesystems. in the short term ext3 looks favorable even for new systems
>>since pretty much every emergency boot disk can get at ext3 partitions
>>(in ext2 mode).
>>ok, thoughts, flames, etc...
Umm... nope, sadly. The most recent versions of the ext2fs utils can
handle both ext2 and ext3 easily, and can be configured using 'auto' as
the type in /etc/fstab, and an ext2-only system can, as you say, remount
an ext3 filesystem as ext2.
However, in the event of an emergency, when an ext3 filesystem has been
unmounted in an undetermined state and has live data in the journal
file, then the utils will refuse to mount it as an ext2 filesystem until
an ext3-aware util has replayed the journal and moved the filesystem
into a known state.
So, you would be unable to rescue an ext3 system with, for example, an
RH 6.2 CD.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:11:52 GMT