Converting to reiserfs is a pain but no fsck'ing on boot is worth it. If you're not going to use that though I would use ext2. Like you, I've never lost an ext2 disk due to a crash. I have let the smoke out of a couple of disk drives though :-) Jan On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:44, Larry Troxler wrote: > On Saturday 15 February 2003 08:57, Jan \"Evil Twin\" Depner wrote: > > I have copies of Mark Knecht's benchmarks on my web page : > > > > http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/Arcana.html > > That's a good link - thanks. > > Man, there's so many factors to think of it. I was especially boggled to hear > that the disk drive cable I'm using might be a culprit. Arggh! Who can keep > track of all this? > > > > > as well as a write-up explaining why you shouldn't use ext3. It > > basically comes down to the fact that ext3 is using a separate file to > > handle the journal. What this means is that as you write your audio > > data, every once in a while, the system has to write to a different file > > in a separate location on the hard drive. > > Yeah, that's what I was concerned about. > > > It will depend on how close > > the files are physically to each other, disk latency, and a host of > > other things but, eventually, you will see problems with ext3. It's not > > hard to convert to reiserfs (instructions (destructions?) are included > > on the above page) so why not. > > Looks like you can't convert non-destructively though. What a pain. > > > Reiser journals are kept with (as part > > of?) the files - you don't have to run fsck after a crash. A real > > intersting thing to note is that reiserfs actually seems to be faster > > than ext2 for what we're doing. > > > > fsck'ing is a pain, yes, but if it needs to be done too often there's other > problems :-) so for me, ext3 is nice, but not needed I think. I have had bad > shutdowns over the years quite often on ext2, and although it's not nice to > wait for it to come back up, I've never had a case where I had to do a manual > repair. > > Larry Troxler > >
