Ghosting versus fresh install
I'm going to be upgrading soon, and I'm going to a new 320GB SATA drive from a 250GB IDE. What would be ther preferential choice, ghosting or a fresh install?
|
Who's choice? Mine is always a fresh install. Don't forget to backup, especially your config files.
|
here we go again...
Quote:
- me |
I usually go for fresh install as well, cuz I always forget to update things when I upgrade. And, if I don't forget to update things, I constantly worry ... did I forget to update something ... ?
|
I was thinking I could just make an image of the current install, then put that on the new 320GB sata drive, but I'm not sure what kind of problems I may run into because it's going to be a completely new system with new MoBo and CPU. I was also thinking about JFS instead of what I have which is:
Code:
/dev/hdc3 swap swap defaults 0 0 |
If you're running a stock kernel, preferably one with many things compiled in then you can probably do it. However, if you made a custom kernel ... then it is less likely to work. Again, if it's not too much trouble, re-install is preferable, especially when changing systems, and even more so for systems that differ greatly. Why not, back everything up, try ghosting, then if it fails, wipe it and re-install. Either way you have to back things up.
P.S. I just read your sig. ... that's a very nice quote comparison :), I wonder if Bill came up with the M$ ad, or was it Himmler, I mean Ballmer... |
Quote:
- Perry |
Quote:
I can tell you that JFS is as reliable as ext3 and much faster. I would not let reiserfs touch my hard disk however. Eric |
Quote:
Quote:
I happen to handle large files regularly ... movie captures and such, and I've found, much like this notice says, that ext3 is somewhat on the inadequate side. I can vouch for the fact that XFS and JFS are the way to go when handling large files and when embarking on a project such as MythTV ... And this filesystem benchmark also helps my point: http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html Now, do tell me, why do you say JFS is unreliable ? I mean, what happened to make you think this ? Did it fail you in some way ? Could you be more specific ? |
well... to be fair...
Quote:
now doing a sector-by-sector overwrite on it beforehand while using the make_disk.sh utility might have had something to do with it not working reliably, i'm not sure... sounds crazy, but thats my experience, so i'm not going to argue with you if you've had no problems with it. just that i should have gotten some sort of diagnostic telling me that the filesystem had changed. just being honest, i don't mind admitting to mistakes if it's in the interest of common good... cheers - perry |
Got the new system up and running and right out of the gate JFS seems more responsive. Doesn't take anytime at all to replay the journal entries on bootup. I slaved the 250GB PATA drive, using it as a media drive and it takes slightly longer on the journal replay than the JFS, though that could just be due to the JFS being on a SATA drive.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 PM. |