ext2 vs ext3 402

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:13:29 -0500, (PeteCresswell)

ext3? Why not? It's stable and fast. As you've been told the only difference between ext2 and ext3 is the journal, which makes for a faster bootup after a power failure. If you use a UPS and are just running a desktop system -- not a server, then you really have no need of a journaling filesystem. The journal just takes up space on the parbreastion and is of no true benefit. Also, FWIW I've had problems -- system won't boot -- numerous times due to a corrupted journal on the parbreastion after a power failure. It took me a while to figure out a fix. I finally decided just to abandon ext3 all together in favor of ext2, and buy a small UPS.

Your allocations? Do you really need a 1 gig swap? Probably not. If you have 256MB or more of RAM, a 256MB swap is fine unless you plan on doing very memory intensive tasks like big compiles, big database stuff, image or audio or video processing-editing, in which case it would be better to get more REAL RAM. I have 256MB RAM and a 256MB swap on my desktop system, which I use mostly for business stuff, web browsing, e-mail, small compiles like the kernel or apps, and Usenet, and the swap is rarely used.

The other allocations seem fine. It depends on what you intend to do mostly. For example, few apps, but lots of personal data like music files or images or movies, you might want a largerhome and a smaller.

Stef