[NTLUG:Discuss] [Bulk] Re: ext3 waste disk spaces then Windows ME?

[Terry]

On 4/29/06, Leroy Tennison <leroy_tennison at prodigy.net> wrote:
> Pat Regan wrote:
> > m m wrote:
> >
> >> All:
> >>
> >> I just found this:
> >>
> >> " ... Ext3 has the worst inital capacity (92.77%), while others FS preserve
> >> almost full partition capacity (ReiserFS = 99.83%, JFS = 99.82%, XFS =
> >> 99.95%). Interestingly, the residual capacity of Ext3 and ReiserFS was
> >> identical to the initial, while JFS and XFS lost about 0.02% of their
> >> partition capacity, suggesting that these FS can dynamically grow but do not
> >> completely return to their inital state (and size) after file removal."
> >>
> >> from
> >>
> >> http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/6396
> >>
> >> According to the article abovem it seems that the XFS is "better" than ext3.
> >> ext3 must be good at some points, otherwise why the most distro use it?
> >> Anyone have the idea?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Somebody needs to tell the author of that article about the fact that
> > mke2fs reserves 5% of the filesystem for root by default.  That would
> > bring your number for ext2 up to almost 98%.
> >
> > 5% was a very reasonable amount of space to set aside 10+ year ago.
> > Today, it can be a huge waste of space.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://ntlug.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> This seems like as good a time as any to ask "Does anyone have a
> comparison of file systems?"  What are the good and bad points of each?
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://ntlug.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

Until such time as someone convences me that ReiserFS is as reliable
and problem free as ext3 I'm sticking with tried and proven ext3.
(Hard drives are cheap, I'm not all that concerned about wasting 5%).

--
<><