Re: ext2 vs ext3?
- From: Robert Heller <heller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 04:30:47 +0100
Dances With Crows <danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows@xxxxxxxxx>,
In a message on Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:36:49 -0600, wrote :
DWC> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:03:30 +0100, Robert Heller staggered into the
DWC> Black Sun and said:
DWC> > William Park <opengeometry@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
DWC> >>> No one uses plain EXT2 anymore, use EXT3.
DWC> >> I still [use ext2].
DWC> > As do I, on removable media (Zip and Orb disks).
DWC> ext2 is a bad fit for removable media in many cases. The UID/GIDs don't
DWC> translate across systems, meaning you can't put your ext2 removable
DWC> media in a random system and have the owners/groups translate properly.
DWC> A random computer is likely to be Windows/OS X, which means it won't be
DWC> able to read your ext2 media without special prodding. ext2 also has
DWC> higher overhead than FAT32, which means your ~95M Zip disk (FAT32)
DWC> becomes a ~93M Zip disk (ext2).
In *my* case, the removable media is my backup media. I don't use ext2
with files meant for mess-windows or MacOSX! To quote Mr. Simpson: Duh!
Mostly the removable media contains either conpressed tar files OR
random loose files. In either case being able to preserve various
attributes (eg ownership, dates, etc.) is important. The added
overhead is worth it. If I plan on passing data to 'other' systems, I
can easily reformat the disks as needed. Or burn a ISO9660 CD...
Robert Heller ||InterNet: heller@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.deepsoft.com/ ||FidoNet: 1:321/153