ext2 over ext3 for long-running servers

[djnauk]

hiya,

i'm getting a few new (small) servers to install and setup for myself and family. The one i'm using now have been running for 270 days using an ext3 file system. Next reboot will require a full system fs check, and with being connected to a UPS power supply, wouldn't ext2 be better?

I know you get the advantages of protections against unexpected shutdown with ext3, but as it's connected to a battery, even with power-faileur, it can only be shut down safely. The only thing that would cause an sudden shutdown would be a press on the power switch or a hardware fault (in which case I would be less inclined to want it to reboot).

In this case, wouldn't ext2 be better (and faster). Any thoughts?
_________________
Jonathan Wright (Technical Director, JAB Web Solutions)

UK Hosting & Reseller Hosting from JAB Web Solutions

[PowerFactor]

I saw a benchmark once where ext3 actually came out slightly faster than ext2 for reads, ext2 was faster for writes of course. But I dont' think it would make any noticable difference for your purposes unless you are using some really old slow drives. I'd just stick with ext3. But you could always do some testing of your own.

[Nate_S]

If you have a UPS anyways, you might look into XFS, I hear it's very good but can be dangerous unless you have a UPS. Otherwise, have you considered reiserfs? I've been quite happy with it, it's very fast.