ext4 & ntfs (from old times, too lazy to format)
i guess rather than ext3 or ext4 for an average PC user is unnecessary.
Frothy Coffee!
ext4 & ntfs (from old times, too lazy to format)
i guess rather than ext3 or ext4 for an average PC user is unnecessary.
When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.
Gee! These Aren't Roasted!
Iam using xfs . When I installed Ubuntu in a xfs partition , it became much faster than in ext3 . I tried using ext4 but didn't feel much performance improvement in Ubuntu (ie responsiveness and program loading speed). So I switched to xfs
Spilled the Beans
In the release notes, there was a concern about corruption in ext4 when writing to large files (over 512MB). See:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/rele...4%20filesystem
From what I can tell, the investigation seems to be stuck on trying to reproduce the problem, and I have not seen a confirmed report of this problem on the forums.
The fact that ext4 is the default in 9.10 on new partitions means that ext4 has probably been given quite an extensive workout during the past week. If it's really true that no new reports are surfacing of the 512MB+ corruption bug, do you think it's safe to stop worrying about this issue when deciding between ext3 and ext4?
Frothy Coffee!
How much faster is ext4 than ext3?
Posting Permissions
Adv Reply
Bookmarks