| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
QuestionQuestionPosted Oct 14, 2008 17:46 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Question by jamesh Parent article: Linux Summit will preview new advanced file system (SearchEnterpriseLinux.com)
Ext3 vs Ext4 is going to be a hard transition for distributions because it's not obvious that Ext4 is going to have lots of improvements that will have a substantial impact on end user experience. Does 'now have extents' really going to make Openoffice start faster or make my system more 'crash resistant'?
Btrfs, on the other hand, has that really 'wow neat features' aspect to it. The same sort of attractive stuff that makes people lust after ZFS without ever actually touching it or knowing that much about it or whether or not it will eat their data or run with any sort of acceptable performance.
It seems pretty likely that, at this point, people would end up supporting Ext4 for the minority of people that specifically request it and leapfrog it by making Btrfs the real successor to Ext3 (by way of the default FS selected by their installers).
(Log in to post comments)
Question Posted Oct 15, 2008 0:13 UTC (Wed) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] Significantly shorter fsck times for Ext4 is a compelling reason by itself. Reduced fragmentation and being able to handle more files as well as larger hard drives is yet more reasons. As good as btrfs is going to be, it is years away from completion ("production ready" is being touted for 2012), vs Ext4 that is just around the corner.
|
|
||||||||||||