LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 12-29-2012, 02:59 AM   #1
stf92
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Buenos Aires.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,033

Rep: Reputation: 45
pros and cons of ext4 versus ext2?


Hi:
I am about to install slackware 14.0 64-bit and have to choose between ext2 and ext4 (more precisely between journaling and non journaling). The last time I installed 14.0 (it was the 32-bit version) I chose ext4, and soon I regretted, but I do not remember why. What are the possible disadvantages of ext4/ext3 as compared with ext2?
 
Old 12-29-2012, 03:22 AM   #2
sycamorex
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: London
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 5,524
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 997Reputation: 997Reputation: 997Reputation: 997Reputation: 997Reputation: 997Reputation: 997Reputation: 997
Here's a comparison of those filesystems:
http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/05/ext2-ext3-ext4/

If you're working with SSD drives, ext4 would be recommended due to its Trim support. Additionally, with older SSD drives journaling was not recommended:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...the_filesystem
It looks like it's not a problem any more.
 
Old 12-29-2012, 03:51 AM   #3
stf92
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Buenos Aires.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,033

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 45
Thank you. I looked at wikipedia, articles ext2, ext3, ext4 but I could not find the disadvantage I had found earlier.
 
Old 12-29-2012, 08:48 AM   #4
manwichmakesameal
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 800

Rep: Reputation: 100Reputation: 100
I'm not sure what made you regret using ext4. The only time I regretted using a filesystem was years ago, I was using ReiserFS and it deleted a bunch of files and killed my family.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 12-29-2012, 08:50 AM   #5
kikinovak
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Montpezat (South France)
Distribution: Slackware, Slackware64
Posts: 1,489

Rep: Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662Reputation: 662
I'm using ext2 only on a small 100 MB /boot partition, where a journaled filesystem is of no use. For the rest, it's ext4, always.
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:35 AM   #6
jefro
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 11,013

Rep: Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356Reputation: 1356
Older slower machine used for fun should use ext2. Any fast system used for needed data ought to have ext4.

There is little risk of using ext2 even on big systems if proper backup rules are followed. It has been used for decades.
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:57 AM   #7
BlackRider
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 261

Rep: Reputation: 82
"The only time I regretted using a filesystem was years ago, I was using ReiserFS and it deleted a bunch of files and killed my family."

Hell, I hope this is sarcasm only.

Last time I had to set a server up for non critical data, I used ext2. This filesystem has survived some power supply shutdowns with no critical data loss.

Ext4 is nice, but you have to be careful with the options. Barrirers, journal mode if any, delayed allocation etc. can cause data loss if set wrong. Don't assume defaults are sane! If you have to use Ext4, you'd better know how to do so. I have had to recover from backups some times precisely because a "performance feature" of an ext4 filesystem was enabled when it would have been better to shut it down...
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 12-29-2012, 01:24 PM   #8
stf92
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Buenos Aires.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,033

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 45
Thank you very much. Well, after all, I didn't do it so bad.
 
Old 12-29-2012, 01:47 PM   #9
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,746

Rep: Reputation: 458Reputation: 458Reputation: 458Reputation: 458Reputation: 458
I still use ext3 for dependable journalling. But I still might use ext2 for any read-only needs.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 12-29-2012, 02:36 PM   #10
stf92
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: Buenos Aires.
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,033

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 45
Thanks, gnashley.
 
Old 12-29-2012, 04:13 PM   #11
syg00
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 12,057

Rep: Reputation: 971Reputation: 971Reputation: 971Reputation: 971Reputation: 971Reputation: 971Reputation: 971Reputation: 971
I have found ext4 eminently reliable and flexible. No worse than earlier offerings - from Ted or anyone else.
But then I've also been using btrfs for years ...

Note my sigline.
 
Old 12-30-2012, 07:46 PM   #12
storkus
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2008
Posts: 309

Rep: Reputation: 45
One thing no one here has mentioned is that ext4 is an add-on (with, hopefully, more efficient and reliable code) to ext3, and ditto for ext3 to ext2 (more or less just journalling in that case). In the kernel, there is an option (which I think is the default on Pat's kernels) for the ext4 driver to also be used for any ext3/2 filesystems.

I mention this because you can tune ext4 to do anything you want with the proper options, including acting just like ext3 and 2. Likewise, if absolute data integrity is your goal, ext4 has some non-default settings (because you'll take a performance hit). Check out the tune2fs(8) man age: in particular, the mount option "journal_data_ordered" is the default, but "journal_data" (no suffix) is is the slowest, but safest (if memory from reading discussions on the subject serves correctly). If you're really paranoid, you can also turn off TRIM support (no "discard" entry or even "^discard" if you're exceptionally paranoid).

Btrfs and zfs have even more data-integrity options (block FEC if I recall correctly?), but btrfs had some regressions recently and still underperforms ext4 (but getting ever closer).

Personally, I've been using ext4 for years now on my laptop, and I haven't had a data loss yet even running the battery down to the point where the BIOS forces hard-shutdown!
(Of course, it's just a laptop, not a server...)

Hope this helps, Mike
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FreeNAS Pros and Cons fail_distraction Linux - Distributions 2 10-13-2012 04:26 PM
[SOLVED] ext2 versus ext4 jcmahne Linux - Hardware 2 03-08-2011 08:13 AM
What are the Pros versus Cons with File Integrity Detection Systems 2backitup Linux - Security 7 03-02-2006 06:47 PM
pros/cons of getting a G5 Tomasfuego Linux - Hardware 4 06-07-2005 04:53 AM
Gnome 2.8 Pros and Cons maelstrom209 Linux - Software 0 01-27-2005 02:36 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration