ext2 vs ext3 406

This doesn't seem logical. During what write operations would otherwise-absent steps required to (first) write to a journal not impose overhead?

Of course, in pointing out the fallacy posted (a blanket claim about ext3), I wasn't referring to the original poster.

You would have had a point, if you hadn't just invented something I did not say. Allow me to refresh your memory:

ext3 is very, very good. ext2 is simply faster where appropriate, enjoying lower overhead. Knowing where to use which is what is called competent system administration.

Now, really, don't you feel a bit silly wasting my time and yours by inventing straw-man objections?

Wow, if you could get ahead by citing meaningless plabreastudes with no connection to antecedent discussion, you'd be miles ahead, by this point.

Who was joking? I wasn't. And I said a -=maximum=- of 20 seconds of fsck time on a (usually) nearly empty 282MB ext2 filesystem, approximately twice a year, during winter storms. You know: "maximum", as in outer-bound estimate. Worst case.

Look, here's what we're talking about:

~ $ df -Htmp Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted ondev-sdb5 282M 59k 266M 1%tmp

One might also hang from the rafters and do a fandango in the air. That seems about equally likely.

Well, that's an understandable mistake on your part, since you based it on having gone out of your way to misread what I wrote. No harm done.

Hello? What part of "extra filesystem overhead works the drive harder" is so difficult to grasp?