You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I am considering using ext2 as the filesystem for / and possibly /home for an Arch64 installation on my Thinkpad T410 laptop. I understand the risks (longer fscks, less possibility of recovery upon a crash), but reduced HDD activity, leading to longer battery life, appeals to me. Are there other advantages/disadvantages that I have not considered?
Offline
There are little advantages to using ext2 compared to a modern filesystem, like ext4. ext2 lacks journaling, a very crucial component of many modern filesystems. This means that you don't have to defrag the drive to increase performance like in windows, because the bits of files are organized together. I think that the extra battery life gained by not using journaling is minimal.
Offline
There are little advantages to using ext2 compared to a modern filesystem, like ext4. ext2 lacks journaling, a very crucial component of many modern filesystems. This means that you don't have to defrag the drive to increase performance like in windows, because the bits of files are organized together. I think that the extra battery life gained by not using journaling is minimal.
+1
I wonder if the time spent defraging and fscking won't put you "in the red" so to speak.
Offline
Battery life is not a reason to use ext2.
I've been told ext4 minus journal is faster than ext2 but in my experience there is data loss.
aur S & M :: forum rules :: Community Ethos
Resources for Women, POC, LGBT*, and allies
Offline
Battery life is not a reason to use ext2.
I've been told ext4 minus journal is faster than ext2 but in my experience there is data loss.
Maybe you can check what fs (mount?) options is Google using. I've heard they are moving from ext2 to ext4 :-)
Offline
That would be good to know. They finished that move a while ago. I can guess what they use. It all depends on what sort of activity one would be having.
aur S & M :: forum rules :: Community Ethos
Resources for Women, POC, LGBT*, and allies
Offline
There are little advantages to using ext2 compared to a modern filesystem, like ext4. ext2 lacks journaling, a very crucial component of many modern filesystems. This means that you don't have to defrag the drive to increase performance like in windows, because the bits of files are organized together. I think that the extra battery life gained by not using journaling is minimal.
Windows uses NTFS, which supports journaling, and I'm still defragging the drive every so often. Could you clarify this?
schen wrote:There are little advantages to using ext2 compared to a modern filesystem, like ext4. ext2 lacks journaling, a very crucial component of many modern filesystems. This means that you don't have to defrag the drive to increase performance like in windows, because the bits of files are organized together. I think that the extra battery life gained by not using journaling is minimal.
+1
I wonder if the time spent defraging and fscking won't put you "in the red" so to speak.
If you are suggesting that battery life will be wasted during fsck, fsck does not run on battery mode, iirc.
Last edited by ah (2010-09-05 02:48:24)
Offline
schen wrote:There are little advantages to using ext2 compared to a modern filesystem, like ext4. ext2 lacks journaling, a very crucial component of many modern filesystems. This means that you don't have to defrag the drive to increase performance like in windows, because the bits of files are organized together. I think that the extra battery life gained by not using journaling is minimal.
Windows uses NTFS, which supports journaling, and I'm still defragging the drive every so often. Could you clarify this?
karol wrote:schen wrote:There are little advantages to using ext2 compared to a modern filesystem, like ext4. ext2 lacks journaling, a very crucial component of many modern filesystems. This means that you don't have to defrag the drive to increase performance like in windows, because the bits of files are organized together. I think that the extra battery life gained by not using journaling is minimal.
+1
I wonder if the time spent defraging and fscking won't put you "in the red" so to speak.If you are suggesting that battery life will be wasted during fsck, fsck does not run on battery mode, iirc.
Oh, I didn't know that fsck won't run while in battery mode - thanks :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_syste … gmentation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defragment … ystem_type
Offline
Pages: 1