On 01/06/10 14:41, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
>> On 05/30 04:12 , Michael Stowe wrote:
>>> It's generally slower, so I'm going to go with "no" on this one.
>>
>> > From the tests I've seen, ext2 is notably faster than ext3. Not doing
>> journaling does make a difference.
>>
>> If you wanted to speed up ext3; you can put the journal on a separate device
>> (even an SSD). This may make a measurable difference; but I haven't tried it
>> myself.
>
> The killer with ext2 is that if you crash you have to do a complete fsck 
> before
> coming back up which will take hours on a large backuppc filesystem.  With 
> ext3
> normally the journal takes care of this.
>

That's what I suspected.  I might give ext2 a try once the effects of my 
recently-enabled checksum caching have kicked in.

cheers

Chris

-- 
Chris Dennis                                  cgdennis AT btinternet DOT com
Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/