<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Raymond McLaughlin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:driveray@ameritech.net">driveray@ameritech.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Adam Tauno Williams wrote:<br>
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:55 -0400, john-thomas richards wrote:<br>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:46:40PM -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:<br>
>>>> on boot when ext3 hit its 35-mount automatic fsck. (On a rather full<br>
>>>> 1TB drive, that can take long enough so as to look like it's not<br>
>>>> getting anywhere...)<br>
>>> Ugh, I know! You can change that with tune2fs.<br>
>> How necessary is this anymore?<br>
><br>
> To delay, or control, the mandatory filesystem check that occurs every X<br>
> number of mounts. On large filesystems this can take a very long time<br>
> and on laptops it can just be down right annoying.<br>
<br>
</div>This is why XFS is my filesystem of choice, especially for large<br>
volumes. Some folks like to stick with a small ext3 volume for the OS<br>
itself, and there are valid reasons for this selection. But for big<br>
(>30G) filesystems XFS is really the way to go.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Raymond McLaughlin<br>
</font><div><div></div> <br></div></blockquote><div>Please elaborate. XFS can be checked<br>much faster, but just as thoroughly in<br>some sense? What are the "valid reasons?"<br>As in, I don't know a thing about it, so a<br>
small word salad about what it is, and its<br>virtues and advantages over ext3, would <br>be appreciated.<br><br>Hasn't ext4 started to be used in Linux?<br>Anyone know what it offers in the way<br>of improvements over ext3, and the rest<br>
of the world of file systems?<br><br>Yes, these questions can be about as <br>annoying to answer as "how are you?",<br>or "What's up?" But helpful to some of<br>us.<br><br> -- Bob<br></div></div>