Well, that'll teach me to interject without paying attention to the
bigger scope... Anyway, these seem to be some good docs:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fs7/
http://people.spoiled.org/jha/ext3-faq.html
I personally found it *very* easy to use EXT3. Just upgrade to 7.2 (I
suggest you install all the latest patches/upgrades too) and if the
filesystem is EXT2, run:
tune2fs -j /dev/<some-partition>
then change the type to "ext3" in the "/etc/fstab" and reboot. Voila.
You probably already knew that though.
The major advantage (the only advantage I have seen) is it avoids the
long "fsck"s, though the first URL says a lot more about its pluses.
As far as losing data with "fsck"s, in the 500+ (now heading in the
thousands of) Unix boxes I worked with in the last 10 years I may have
seen perhaps 10 cases where really critical stuff got moved, lost, or
removed as a result of the "fsck" on a healthy disk. Most of the times
"fsck" did anything objectionable was when the disk was on its way out
anyway. Most other "fsck" victims have been temporary files from apps
that hadn't completed their work so the data was more than iffy (even
then it tended to be preserved, just not where you left it).
I'd have to say given my mostly positive experiences with "fsck", if
there was any significant performance degradation just to avoid "fsck"
type issues I'd probably stick with "fsck". However, if I could have the
performance (or most of it) and avoid "fsck" then obviously that's the
way I'd go. So far "ext3" seems pretty good in that respect, but I can't
say I've paid all that much attention.
Well good luck! Hope that was even vaguely useful.
- Matt
Richard Troy wrote:
>
> Well, Matt,
>
> your post brought a smile. Thanks for your gentle response. As a closing
> remark on my use of the word "stupid", yes, I chose that word with some
> abandon - I'm aware of its potentially offensive reception. However, I
> recall the arguments at the time quite vividly. My coleagues urged me to
> let it go because on the other side of the argument were, in their words,
> "just snot-nosed college kids who don't know any better." ...Being VERY
> much younger than them at the time, I was a victem of age-discrimination,
> and I remember being offended by their remarks but bit my tongue. Anyway,
> unlike my coleagues, I foresaw the use of Unix for business computing and
> lamented that the systems were so unstable and, in particular, that one
> system crash could send you back to the distribution tapes to build the
> system over from scratch... ...There really never was a particular reason
> that disk meta-data wasn't taken more seriously except for the misguided
> cry for "performance." My rethort was, "Yeah, some performance while
> you're rebuilding your system from tape! Hah!"
>
> ANYWAY... I'm using Linux for business these days and I like it a lot but
> want a better file system. I've heard of quite a few new ones - new to me
> anyway - and when I asked about it, nobody really replied with the kind of
> response I was hoping for. Ext2 is all I've got working. I ran into a
> mountain of hassle with ext3 - I just don't have time for crap that
> doesn't work. I've learned from this list that ext3 works fine and it was
> an installation or upgrade problem, but that doesn't tell me _anything_
> about why I might want ext3. ...That's part of why I never followed
> through on those installation and upgrade problems - no motive. Another
> thing I was asking about I never heard anything about was the how/where
> question - I only picked up that ext3 comes with RH7.x - and I already
> knew that...
>
> So, I think it'd be really neat if someone would put together a small
> table outlining what's available for our beloved RedHat Linux
> systems, telling us whether or not they're included with Red Hat, or
> whether we have to hunt down the RPMS, etc., and perhaps with a brief
> statement of the technology and good applications. What I'm thinking of
> would be essentially a roll up of what we've read on this list in recent
> days.
>
> Anybody want to give this a try? I think it'd be a real service. Maybe
> just reply with a summary of your personal favorite?
>
> Thanks much,
> Richard
>
> --
> Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
> Science Tools Corporation
> rtroy@ScienceTools.com, 510-567-9957, http://ScienceTools.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-devel-list mailing list
> Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fahrner 2 South Park St.
Manager of Networking Willis House
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Lebanon, N.H. 03766
TEL: (603) 448-4100 xt 5150 USA
FAX: (603) 443-6190 Matt.Fahrner@COAT.COM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
