Hein Zelle:
If I was going to make the choice you suggest I'd likely go for ext2
as requires slightly less work for the system than carrying the
overhead of doing the ext3 stuff and I figure that I would never know
when I'm going to run out of compute cycles.
I'd seriously advise against that, if you don't absolutely have to.
Agreed.
You only need one occasion with a power failure or complete X lockup
(hard reset the only thing that works) to make ext3 worth your while
(or any journalling filesystem, for that matter).
Yes. Ext2 is generally dangerous.
For each power failure (or crash, or whatever), the chance of getting a
more corrupt harddrive increases. Also, it takes a lot of time (don't be
surprised if it takes more than 30 minutes!) to boot after an abrupt
reboot with ext2, because the disk is checked for errors.
And since both ext2 and ext3 are fast enough to provide probably
100 (or so) audio tracks anyway, very few people probably need that extra
few tracks or cpu cycles that ext2 theoretically might provide.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
