ext3 Bug in 2.4.20

[Net Llama!]

On 12/03/02 19:07, Jerry McBride wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 21:28:53 -0500 "Brett I. Holcomb" <bholcomb at intergate.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:48:42PM -0800, Net Llama! wrote:
>> >> On 12/03/02 16:23, kwall at kurtwerks.com wrote:
>> > 
>> > Okay, now we're down to cases. ext3 is not immune to data loss, but it is
>> > far less so than ext2. I don't have a terrabyte raid array to worry about,
>> > so a "stupid time-consuming fsck" takes, oh, 10 minutes. Despite the
>> 
>> Is ext3 faster than ext2? 
> 
> No... same for XFS. ANY linux journaling fs will be slower than ext2...

That's not true.  Recent benchmarking tests have shown XFS & Reiser to 
both be faster.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

   8:10pm  up 2 days,  5:38,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00