>> > Try switching to ext3 or xfs. If that helps you, it was reisersfs >> problem. >> > Also, you may try 2.6 kernel, but I'd try to switch to xfs first. > > On 18.05.06 17:50, Edvard Chitro wrote: >> Which one is faster ? Ext2 or xfs ? > > do NOT use ext2, unless you are prepared to wait for fsck or rebuild > filesystem (and loosing the cache) each time machine/power crashes. Power is really stable I have UPS ... > >> Ext3 is the slowest of all ... > > no, there are slower filesystems, e.g. FAT32. > You can choose ext3, just use bigger commit interval (e.g. 30 secs). > > Did you have disk performance problems? If not, don't say ext3 is the > slowest. It's STABLE. >From my practice Ext3 is really slow ... its just slow when there are a lot of small files in a directory .... even directory listing is slow ... OK I will first try ext2 ... if it crashes then switch to ext3 ... > -- > Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@xxxxxxxxxxx ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ > Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. > Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. > Chernobyl was an Windows 95 beta test site. >
