View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
vinboy n00b
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 69
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: ext2 on backup (external) HDD? |
|
|
hi
i understand that ext2 is less safe than ext3 and other journaled filesystem.
But since i'm only using it for backup purposes (connect HDD, sync files, remove HDD), does using ext2 as the filesystem make proper sense at all?
please advise.
thanks in advance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yabbadabbadont Advocate
Joined: 14 Mar 2003 Posts: 4791 Location: 2 exits past crazy
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, it makes sense. Plus you save the space that would normally be taken up by the journal. (which can run to hundreds of megabytes on large filesystems) You may also want to use the "-m 0" option when you create the filesystem. Unless you will only write to the disk as root, in which case it won't matter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vinboy n00b
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 69
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks!
btw, how does ext2 perform over reiserfs, xfs and other popular ones?
Since ext2 does have journal, it should be really fast....
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyker Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1746
|
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Depends on what the load is.
I've not done much with reiser etc., but I find that ext2 prefers fewer large file writes, but doesn't like lots of small writes.
ext3 is fairly similar, although I find extremely large files can take an age to copy on my ext3 partition because there seems to be some bug that causes something to thrash the disk (The journal maybe?) in rare cases.
I still use FAT32 on my external backup disks for speed reasons, but TBH the difference isn't going to be significant enough in any direction for it to matter a huge amount IMHO.
NTFS and reiser are supposed to be good at handling sub-cluster-sized files. Don't know anything about XFS or JFS etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|