>> > Try switching to ext3 or xfs. If that helps you, it was reisersfs
>> problem.
>> > Also, you may try 2.6 kernel, but I'd try to switch to xfs first.
>
> On 18.05.06 17:50, Edvard Chitro wrote:
>> Which one is faster ? Ext2 or xfs ?
>
> do NOT use ext2, unless you are prepared to wait for fsck or rebuild
> filesystem (and loosing the cache) each time machine/power crashes.
Power is really stable I have UPS ...
>
>> Ext3 is the slowest of all ...
>
> no, there are slower filesystems, e.g. FAT32.
> You can choose ext3, just use bigger commit interval (e.g. 30 secs).
>
> Did you have disk performance problems? If not, don't say ext3 is the
> slowest. It's STABLE.
From my practice Ext3 is really slow ... its just slow when there are a
lot of small files in a directory .... even directory listing is slow ...
OK I will first try ext2 ... if it crashes then switch to ext3 ...
> --
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
> Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
> Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
> Chernobyl was an Windows 95 beta test site.
>
Received on Fri May 19 2006 - 03:11:47 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 12:00:02 MDT