Why EXT2 is better then FAT/NTFS etc..?

[Crisis]

Ok trying to build a good arguement why EXT2 is better then FAT/NTFS, besides the fact that EXT2 writes files without causing fragmentation, and other obvious reasons it is better?

 

[MGMorden]

Well, EXT2 is better than FAT for obvious reasons (no fragmenting, secuirity), but I don't really see it as being better than NTFS. NTFS recovers from a crash a lot better (I've had linux hose itself completly by locking when xfree86 was misconfigured). That being said I do see ReiserFS as being at least equal to NTFS (even though I don't really like MS NTFS is a very good technology).

 

[UnixFreak]

<< I've had linux hose itself completly by locking when xfree86 was misconfigured >>



this is why you always choose text logon, even if X is properly configured. Then you just type &quot;startx&quot; to start. This gives a way to back out if X crashes, at least you can get to a prompt.

 

[LeoE]

I'm using ReiserFS under Linux, and it's probably better than all the above. Besides instant crash recovery (journaling), ReiserFS uses more advanced tree algorithms which make it fast even with millions of files. I haven't tested this first-hand, but ReiserFS should have the best space efficiency as well as speed, in most cases. Security should be on par with ext2fs.

 

[MGMorden]

That wasn't the problem. Even if X is set to autostart then you can type 'linux single' at lilo and get back to the single user (no X11) mode (I think you can also specify the run level at lilo too, but I've not ever tried). The problem was that after this first crash the partition was trashed. No booting into single user, X11, prompt, nothing. It was dead. Afterall, I didn't say that it wouldn't boot into X, I said that it died after the crash.