I recently read an interview w/ one of the maintainers of ext3, and they mentioned that it generates quite a bit more drive activity than ext2. For that reason, they recommended against using ext3 for laptops. As to whether it's slower or not, I have to imagine that the journaling has some overhead, but whether that makes it slower, I don't know.
Make sense! I'm always a linux laptop user [this time is on vaio]. That "slower" feeling comes because, like if I fire up the konsole then it takes a second or two before the prompt shows up. Firing up other apps is also the same, it always makes the HD seem to work extra harder.
JD
----- Original Message ----- From: "JD" <filsuf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:01 PM Subject: Ext3 vs Ext2
Hallo list, I have a "feeling" that ext3 is much slower than ext2. My hadrdrive blinks more often after I let RH8 formatted it with its favorite ext3; not to mention the noise from the harddrive rotation. As I said, it's just a "feeling" so please don't flame me for feeling it. Am I justified anyway? Is it true that ext3 fs is somehow inferior in practice that ext2? JD
-- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
-- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
