Questions on EXT3 vs standard BSD partitions
list-freebsd-2004 at morbius.sent.com
Sat Jul 1 14:15:27 UTC 2006
On Friday 30 June 2006 17:44, Jim Stapleton wrote:
> I have to move between BSD and Linux on one system quite a bit, and I
> was wondering if there were any reasons to avoid EXT3 on a filesystem
> (such as /dev/ad0s1), as opposed to using the more standard BSD setups
> (such as UFS on /dev/ad0s1a)? I'm thinking mostly in terms of
> reliability, but also in terms of flexibility and speed.
I haven't tried recently, but a year or so ago FreeBSD could not use ext3 as
such. There is a port that adds ext3 fsck support for syncing the journal,
FreeBSD can then mount it as ext2. The problem with that is that you then
have a choice between reliability and decent write speed according to whether
you mount it synchronously or asynchronously.
I found that even having an ext3 transfer partition that's mounted by
default was a bit of a pain, because without a journal or softupdates,
booting after a crash can take a long time.
More information about the freebsd-questions