From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LSyRC-0004kn-GA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5809CE0261; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C39CE0261 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBD36438E for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.534 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.534 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vL+7IkfFsnQO for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C2D6438C for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LSyQw-00019M-4f for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:42 +0000 Received: from c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net ([98.215.178.6]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:42 +0000 Received: from reader by c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:42 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Harry Putnam Subject: [gentoo-user] Ext4 another thread Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:49:33 -0600 Organization: Still searching... Message-ID: <87fxj0ljcy.fsf@newsguy.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MAQjFPN3WPsR+UmQKv1n2kKnjX4= Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 050aa19f-faf5-4425-89ba-4268a6f08b0b X-Archives-Hash: efe2244e7c018b7d46c87bcb648dff41 I didn't want to derail the existing thread discussing ext4 with this angle ... I'm guessing there may be comments that will not be helpful to that OP. I'm wondering what people running ext4 are seeing in practice that makes it better than ext3 or reiserfs? Is it safer journalling? Faster read/write? ... I've thought about switching over too... especially every time I `rm -rf' something big and it seems to take way longer than I'd like. (I run all reiserfs except ext2 for /boot)