| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 148467 | 2020-01-15 22:49:00 | Linux partition formats. | mzee (3324) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1466015 | 2020-01-15 22:49:00 | If Linux Fat Dog 64 is installed to an ext3 partition it loads twice as fast as when installed to an ext4 partition. Why is this? What is the difference between ext3 & ext4? |
mzee (3324) | ||
| 1466016 | 2020-01-16 00:05:00 | Ext3 The main benefit of ext3 is that it allows journaling. Journaling has a dedicated area in the file system, where all the changes are tracked. When the system crashes, the possibility of file system corruption is less because of journaling. Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 2 TB Overall ext3 file system size can be from 2 TB to 32 TB There are three types of journaling available in ext3 file system. Journal – Metadata and content are saved in the journal. Ordered – Only metadata is saved in the journal. Metadata are journaled only after writing the content to disk. This is the default. Writeback – Only metadata is saved in the journal. Metadata might be journaled either before or after the content is written to the disk. Ext4 Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 16 TB Overall maximum ext4 file system size is 1 EB (exabyte). 1 EB = 1024 PB (petabyte). 1 PB = 1024 TB (terabyte). Directory can contain a maximum of 64,000 subdirectories (as opposed to 32,000 in ext3) You can also mount an existing ext3 fs as ext4 fs (without having to upgrade it). Several other new features are introduced in ext4: multiblock allocation, delayed allocation, journal checksum. fast fsck, etc. In ext4, you also have the option of turning the journaling feature “off”. Journaling does slow disk write performance down a bit. But you could use ext4 and turn it off, if it bothers you. |
piroska (17583) | ||
| 1466017 | 2020-01-17 06:01:00 | Read speeds are no different and ext4 is a little faster for writes. Something else is going on. |
fred_fish (15241) | ||
| 1466018 | 2020-01-24 07:35:00 | How are these speeds benchmarked? Anyways, I would say its true that earlier filesystems are faster than their successor because they had smaller block sizes, less features and less metadata, however storage devices have increased in speeds that it should go unnoticed unless you are comparing oranges with oranges. If its performance you are seeking then you would be better going for a filesystem that has minimal features for what you need to achieve. |
Kame (312) | ||
| 1466019 | 2020-01-26 21:14:00 | I have no idea why its faster with ext3, than ext4. I saw this on a Fat Dog forum. Fat Dog loads into RAM, and for some reason it does it quicker on ext3. No benchmark, you can see the text on the screen is much faster when loading. Makes no difference on a modern computer, but on a 2009 Dell Vostro, and a Dell Mini 10 it does. | mzee (3324) | ||
| 1466020 | 2020-01-27 20:25:00 | a quick google search gives this web.archive.org ext4 is faster "The most beaming result was 4GB file writing performance. Ext4 totally blew the others filesystems out of the water" "Softpedia also ran another test on an Ubuntu system and found that Ext4 shaved 8.7 seconds from the system’s booting time" |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1 | |||||