Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:37:23AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> While running an oldconfig with the new kernel, I got the following prompt:
>>
>> Second extended fs support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>> Ext3 journalling file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
>> The Extended 4 (ext4) filesystem (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n
>>
>> the lack of parallelism in the headline prompts is a little jarring.
>> Any interest in a patch to make this look uniform, or is it not worth
>> it? If you are interested, which variant do you prefer?
>
> I'll note that we don't have consistency across all of the entries in
> fs/Kconfig, not just ext2/ext3/ext4. If it were just up to me I'd
> probably prefer:
>
> Ext2 file system support (EXT2_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
> Ext3 file system support (EXT3_FS) [N/m/y/?] n
> Ext4 file system support (EXT4_FS) [N/m/y/?] (NEW) n
>
> ... but it might be worth looking at the other entries in fs/Kconfig
> as well.
Something completely different - Documentation/filesystems/ext4:
- When comparing performance with other filesystems, remember that
ext3/4 by default offers higher data integrity guarantees than most.
So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, such
as ext3, use `mount -o data=writeback'. And you might as well use
^^^^
`mount -o nobh' too along with it. Making the journal larger than
the mke2fs default often helps performance with metadata-intensive
workloads.
Anything _but_ ext3 here?
--
Hilsen Harald.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
