Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
-
- Posts: 142
- Joined: 2008-08-13 07:31
ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
I've heard that ext4 has better performance, but that it will also eat my hard drive. Has this problem been fixed? What would be a safer bet on a squeeze box? Is there even anything to worry about?
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
Go with ext4 and don't look back. Except if you got a separate /boot partition - make that ext2 (no journaling).
asus S551L laptop :: debian stable :: dwm
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
I remember an issue regarding data loss (I had that on Ubuntu, and some guys from Gentoo camp say they witnessed it too), but never experienced that with Mandriva and Debian, so, I think you'll be OK with ext4. And squeeze IS stable, so...
-
- Posts: 113
- Joined: 2007-04-25 03:21
- Location: Oklahoma, USA
- rivenathos
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 2009-01-09 11:57
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
When I upgraded from Lenny to Squeeze, I did a clean install with ext4 partitions. I have had no problems.
Running Debian on Dell: OptiPlex 3010, OptiPlex 7010, OptiPlex 9010, and Inspiron 1545.
Linux User #461545
Savannah, Georgia, USA
Linux User #461545
Savannah, Georgia, USA
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
I would also recommend ext4 -- someone remind me of the exact date but when ext4 initially came out I put it on my eeepc and never, ever had any issues with it.
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
+1 on the ext4, but I wouldn't go ext2 on a boot partition. ext3 yes. ext3 is actually faster than ext2 nowadays. Even if it wasn't if you do have a problem the journal is a good feature. I'd actually recommend that you use ext3 with data journaling. Yes writes are slower, but how often are you writing to the boot partition?Mr James wrote:Go with ext4 and don't look back. Except if you got a separate /boot partition - make that ext2 (no journaling).
Actually when I initially installed ext4 wasn't supported for boot partitions, which is why I used ext3. Now, with grub2, I'm pretty sure that ext4 is supported so there's no reason not to use ext4 for /boot. If you really want to run with no journal then you can run ext4 with no journal. I'd still run full data journaling myself on /boot.
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
When you have a power cut in the middle of your work or any other case of "improper" turning off your computer, and, after restart, you notice that all files on which you were working are lost—and not lost in the sense "Damn, I've just lost last couple of minutes/hours of work", but in sense "What, the whole files are gone?! Replaced with empty, null, zero-byte files?!"—then you'd know that no word is exaggeration enough for this fiasko.chance2105 wrote:News of ext4's faults have been greatly exaggerated.
However, as I said, I never witnessed that with Debian, but have seen it on Ubuntu (though this failure wasn't Ubuntu's fault).
-
- Posts: 113
- Joined: 2007-04-25 03:21
- Location: Oklahoma, USA
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
*shrug* I can't help someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator. Kinda like watching the news. Are you afraid to go outside because it might be.. below 72 degrees? <evil pinky>meho_r wrote:When you have a power cut in the middle of your work or any other case of "improper" turning off your computer, and, after restart, you notice that all files on which you were working are lost—and not lost in the sense "Damn, I've just lost last couple of minutes/hours of work", but in sense "What, the whole files are gone?! Replaced with empty, null, zero-byte files?!"—then you'd know that no word is exaggeration enough for this fiasko.
Ubuntu has this kind of history with important changes in its desktop flavor.
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
BTW I don't have any problems on squeeze with EXT4, if the squeeze was installed using EXT4.
Last edited by cc on 2012-05-26 17:14, edited 1 time in total.
Squeeze / Wheezy / Gnome
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
Yep, it is possible:Bulkley wrote:Is there any way to upgrade from 3 to 4 without reinstalling?
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/643
but be really careful!
After converting from ext3 to ext4 I've got problems with Acronis backups, the image compression didn't work and Acronis Support couldn't help me.
BTW ext3 is a safer choice than ext4 for squeeze, and unless you are growing huge volumes, you're not losing much.
If you plan to do a new, fresh squeeze installation, then you can try ext4.
Another advantage of the ext4, file system check is much quicker.
Squeeze / Wheezy / Gnome
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
been running ext4 since it became official. have had no issues.
Desktop: A320M-A PRO MAX, AMD Ryzen 5 3600, GALAX GeForce RTX™ 2060 Super EX (1-Click OC) - Sid, Win10, Arch Linux, Gentoo, Solus
Laptop: hp 250 G8 i3 11th Gen - Sid
Kodi: AMD Athlon 5150 APU w/Radeon HD 8400 - Sid
Laptop: hp 250 G8 i3 11th Gen - Sid
Kodi: AMD Athlon 5150 APU w/Radeon HD 8400 - Sid
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
That's what UPS is for. And a proper UPS will control the shutdown to make sure it's done right.meho_r wrote:When you have a power cut in the middle of your work or any other case of "improper" turning off your computer, .chance2105 wrote:News of ext4's faults have been greatly exaggerated.
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
I have the same problem. Debian 6.0.7 is fast, but Debian 7 slow. If you have a website, and running MySQL, here's the problem. The new version of MySQL is very cumbersome. Here's an example my site installed on Debian 6.0.7 for 49 seconds, on Debian 7 website installed for 11 minutes.AnimeHendrix wrote:I've heard that ext4 has better performance, but that it will also eat my hard drive. Has this problem been fixed? What would be a safer bet on a squeeze box? Is there even anything to worry about?
There is one more thing that bothers me, even when you adjust the mouse is a fast or slow, hard drive again and thinking too noisy
Re: ext3 or ext4 for squeeze
For ext4 disable barriers for better write and fsync() performance at the cost of some reliability. To test this, try installing Debian packages with ext4 and time it. Then disable barriers with mount option nobarrier (and reboot or remount), drop cache, and try it again, note the speed improvements. Cite source: https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ ... by_default
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Document ... s/ext4.txt
Is it worth it? Up to you. I would say for anything needing good performance in that area just use ext3. I partition my systems using raid1, with lvm. And the lvm uses different file systems for different mount points. I use xfs for anything not otherwise specified, and ext3 for /var and /boot.
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Document ... s/ext4.txt
Is it worth it? Up to you. I would say for anything needing good performance in that area just use ext3. I partition my systems using raid1, with lvm. And the lvm uses different file systems for different mount points. I use xfs for anything not otherwise specified, and ext3 for /var and /boot.
Always on Debian Testing