RE: [TCLUG:14271] ext3

[Yaron <jethro@yaron.org>]

  Hi,

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Thomas.Veldhouse (Exchange) wrote:

> ext2 might work as well if you mount everything synchronisly (option sync).
> However, I/O performance becomes a bit of a dog - depending upon the
> application you are using it for.  If I were running a database, I would
> want sync and let the database handle the buffering.

I'm running this on my desktop, and was basically interested in
reliability over speed, and in abolishing fsck.

My comment on ext3 working better than the docs say refer to the fact that
the  docs say that at this pont,you need to MANUALLY mount/remount the
ext3 partitions in the event of a crash - so your system can't startup
without interraction. However... it did. It fsck'd my non-ext3 partitions,
and then mounted everything with no interaction whatsoever.

-Yaron

--