Preventing ext3 fsck at boot?

Justin Zygmont justin at
Mon Oct 1 16:53:24 UTC 2007

Sandor W. Sklar wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Mike Kearey wrote:
>> Sandor W. Sklar wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> ext3 is best used on a RHEL4 system because it's what we develop, test
>>>> and support. That is a very important consideration. Note that this 
>>>> does
>>>> not mean it's the best one on a technical and theoretical or 
>>>> performance
>>>> standpoint.
>>> That is an interesting point, and one that I didn't consider.  All of
>>> our RHEL systems are built from a local Satellite Server, but we have
>>> bought a few "retail" licenses, for the purposes of support.  So, can I
>>> take it that you're stating that if we were to have a problem with an
>>> XFS, or Reiser filesystem, and opened a support case with it, we might
>>> experience some issues?  That is an important point, so thanks ... that
>>> does help inform our decision.
>> A nice simple way to put it is 'We ship it, we support it'.
>>  ext3 is all the things you want IMO :
>> (a) reliability, (b) performance, and (c) ease of administrative tasks.
>> . A couple more (d)Long support cycle    (e) a good engineering and
>> maintenance understanding of it from your vendor.
> Yes, that all makes sense. It makes even more sense, as I poke around on 
> one of my systems, and realize that XFS, and JFS, and ReiserFS are 
> nowhere to be found.  :-)
> That settles my question!  Ext3 it is!

I remember benchmarks showing ext3 outperforming most other filesystems 
anyways.  There was a discussion about that before and the consensus was 
toward ext3.

More information about the redhat-list mailing list