ext2 for /

ah · 2010-09-04 22:53:19

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?

schen · 2010-09-04 23:12:18

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.

karol · 2010-09-04 23:20:22

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.

fsckd · 2010-09-05 02:17:43

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.

karol · 2010-09-05 02:19:54

fsckd wrote:

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 :-)

fsckd · 2010-09-05 02:38:14

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.

ah · 2010-09-05 02:41:13

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.

Last edited by ah (2010-09-05 02:48:24)

karol · 2010-09-05 02:55:24

ah 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.
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

Arch Linux

#1 2010-09-04 22:53:19

ext2 for /

#2 2010-09-04 23:12:18

Re: ext2 for /

#3 2010-09-04 23:20:22

Re: ext2 for /

#4 2010-09-05 02:17:43

Re: ext2 for /

#5 2010-09-05 02:19:54

Re: ext2 for /

#6 2010-09-05 02:38:14

Re: ext2 for /

#7 2010-09-05 02:41:13

Re: ext2 for /

#8 2010-09-05 02:55:24

Re: ext2 for /

Board footer