Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 15:15:06 +0100 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions on EXT3 vs standard BSD partitions Message-ID: <200607011515.09833.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <80f4f2b20606300944y57a8d7bfqba7dd75ab32fdf46@mail.gmail.com> References: <80f4f2b20606300944y57a8d7bfqba7dd75ab32fdf46@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 30 June 2006 17:44, Jim Stapleton wrote: > I have to move between BSD and Linux on one system quite a bit, and I > was wondering if there were any reasons to avoid EXT3 on a filesystem > (such as /dev/ad0s1), as opposed to using the more standard BSD setups > (such as UFS on /dev/ad0s1a)? I'm thinking mostly in terms of > reliability, but also in terms of flexibility and speed. I haven't tried recently, but a year or so ago FreeBSD could not use ext3 as such. There is a port that adds ext3 fsck support for syncing the journal, FreeBSD can then mount it as ext2. The problem with that is that you then have a choice between reliability and decent write speed according to whether you mount it synchronously or asynchronously. I found that even having an ext3 transfer partition that's mounted by default was a bit of a pain, because without a journal or softupdates, booting after a crash can take a long time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607011515.09833.list-freebsd-2004>