The partitions that I have formatted in ext4 always goes bad.
What is the most reliable format to format a partition in?
What is the most reliable filesystem format for Linux?
Were those partitions logical partitions?
Sometime --and a couple of computers-- ago I kept loosing partitions. I think mikeb advised that the logical-extended system was kind of a hack. I stopped using them and haven't had a problem since.
Of course, my problem and yours could just be that we had failing hard-drives.
Sometime --and a couple of computers-- ago I kept loosing partitions. I think mikeb advised that the logical-extended system was kind of a hack. I stopped using them and haven't had a problem since.
Of course, my problem and yours could just be that we had failing hard-drives.
ext4 is the best way to go, very stable and with journaling.
ext3 is not as good as ext4.
ext2 is very fast but has no protection against files corruption (no journaling).
https://opensource.com/article/18/4/ext4-filesystem
Go for ext4 for reliable data.
ext3 is not as good as ext4.
ext2 is very fast but has no protection against files corruption (no journaling).
https://opensource.com/article/18/4/ext4-filesystem
Go for ext4 for reliable data.
I think ext 3 is the best for Puppy.
This is why.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=112632
This is why.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=112632
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Please give some details?Flash wrote:What do you mean by "goes bad"? Is it gradual or sudden? Is Windows involved in any way?
Your problems may be more than a file system problem.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
No.bigpup wrote:I think ext 3 is the best for Puppy.
This is why.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=112632
ext3 has less bugs, that's normal, because it's given up, it's almost not used anymore.
Today ext4 has replaced ext3 and it's normal that many more bugs are found in it , because it's the most used.
ext4 has many improvments and is better than ext3, there is no doubt about it.
81 seems like a lot of bugs to still be in a file system that has been around since 2008.Today ext4 has replaced ext3 and it's normal that many more bugs are found in it , because it's the most used.
I know what exit 4 is suppose to do, but suppose to do is very different from what it actually does with no errors.
I wonder?
Theodore Ts'o (who by then was ext3's principal developer) announced ext4 in 2006, and it was added to mainline Linux two years later, in kernel version 2.6.28. Ts'o describes ext4 as a stopgap technology which significantly extends ext3 but is still reliant on old technology. He expects it to be supplanted eventually by a true next-generation filesystem.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
It's normal that many bugs are found, because it's used by millions of people and is very much tested.bigpup wrote:81 seems like a lot of bugs to still be in a file system that has been around since 2008.
I know what exit 4 is suppose to do, but suppose to do is very different from what it actually does with no errors.
Yes, he is talking about the next step : BTRFS. But it's not ready yet.bigpup wrote:I wonder?Theodore Ts'o (who by then was ext3's principal developer) announced ext4 in 2006, and it was added to mainline Linux two years later, in kernel version 2.6.28. Ts'o describes ext4 as a stopgap technology which significantly extends ext3 but is still reliant on old technology. He expects it to be supplanted eventually by a true next-generation filesystem.
Those formats are not supported by much of Puppy, if any at all.
There is going to be requirements for added support software that is not in Puppy Linux.
But even with that software, a lot of Puppy programs are not going to know how to use it or even be coded to do so.
We have asked you several times for specific detailed info on exactly what is happening to the ext 4 formatted partition.
There is going to be requirements for added support software that is not in Puppy Linux.
But even with that software, a lot of Puppy programs are not going to know how to use it or even be coded to do so.
We have asked you several times for specific detailed info on exactly what is happening to the ext 4 formatted partition.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
That is some strange logic.(Ext 4) It's normal that many bugs are found, because it's used by millions of people and is very much tested.
This works, but it is not bug free, and we are finding more bugs each day, by millions of people using it.
Oh, that is Windows OS logic.
It sort of works OK.
We will update as we figure it out.
If the question is what is best for Puppy Linux?
I still say ext 3.
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Lassar?
Could you please post below the result of this console command:It will give you and us a list with your disks / partitions,
sizes, % used, type, etc.
From there we will be able to help you better. TIA for helping us help you.
Right now we are groping in the dark, you have given us too little info.
~~~~~~~~~~
The filesystems available on recent Puppies are as follows:
ext2, 3 and 4, f2fs; dos, fat, vfat, exfat, and ntfs.
The last five are a "courtesy" for those users who have a parallel
WhineDose OS on the same PC or do a lot of import / export of
mainstream OS files.
(I call it "WhineDose" because that OS gets its users whining if it does
not get its regular doses of updates.)
The other Linux file systems are indeed great and fascinating, except
they would be overkill for a "small" OS like PuppyLinux.
If you wish to study and / or use them, go ahead and install their
executables, nobody is keeping you from it!
One that I like and occasionally use, is the cross-platform UDF FS. Its
execs are small, but UDF can control partitions as huge as exfat's, as
well as movie DVDs and USB thumb drives. It has little overhead on disk,
which is great if you need the space, but as a consequence it is more
fragile, less sturdy (IMO), than say, ext4.
You may find this overview of Linux file systems instructive and
interesting. All things considered, ext4 compares pretty well with the
new kids on the block.
IHTH. BFN.
Could you please post below the result of this console command:
Code: Select all
df -h -T | grep -E "ile|sd"sizes, % used, type, etc.
From there we will be able to help you better. TIA for helping us help you.
Right now we are groping in the dark, you have given us too little info.
~~~~~~~~~~
The filesystems available on recent Puppies are as follows:
ext2, 3 and 4, f2fs; dos, fat, vfat, exfat, and ntfs.
The last five are a "courtesy" for those users who have a parallel
WhineDose OS on the same PC or do a lot of import / export of
mainstream OS files.
(I call it "WhineDose" because that OS gets its users whining if it does
not get its regular doses of updates.)
The other Linux file systems are indeed great and fascinating, except
they would be overkill for a "small" OS like PuppyLinux.
If you wish to study and / or use them, go ahead and install their
executables, nobody is keeping you from it!
One that I like and occasionally use, is the cross-platform UDF FS. Its
execs are small, but UDF can control partitions as huge as exfat's, as
well as movie DVDs and USB thumb drives. It has little overhead on disk,
which is great if you need the space, but as a consequence it is more
fragile, less sturdy (IMO), than say, ext4.
You may find this overview of Linux file systems instructive and
interesting. All things considered, ext4 compares pretty well with the
new kids on the block.
IHTH. BFN.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
Please don't give wrong advice like this.bigpup wrote:That is some strange logic.
This works, but it is not bug free, and we are finding more bugs each day, by millions of people using it.
Oh, that is Windows OS logic.
It sort of works OK.
We will update as we figure it out.
If the question is what is best for Puppy Linux?
I still say ext 3.
If I write a "hello word" with only 2 bugs, will it be better than writing a firefox with 15.000 bugs ?
Ext4 is better and has more bugs because it has more code and improvements. Yes it is updated as the bugs are found and corrected. Like any supported software.
ext4 has many speed and features improvements over ext3. ext3 should be marked as deprecated in my opinion.
-
Mike Walsh
- Posts: 6351
- Joined: Sat 28 Jun 2014, 12:42
- Location: King's Lynn, UK.
Mmm. I don't know so much. It's just 'advice'. Nothing inherently wrong or right about it. It all depends on the use-case, to a large extent.linuxcbon wrote:Please don't give wrong advice like this.
If I write a "hello word" with only 2 bugs, will it be better than writing a firefox with 15.000 bugs ?
Ext4 is better and has more bugs because it has more code and improvements. Yes it is updated as the bugs are found and corrected. Like any supported software.
ext4 has many speed and features improvements over ext3. ext3 should be marked as deprecated in my opinion.
Ext4 may very well have lots of code & speed improvements. It may very well have all this clearly documented, and you can point me to links for such until you're blue in the face.....but that doesn't make it 'better'.
To my way of thinking, amigo's right in one respect; code only ever 'settles down' to true stability when the coders have finally finished 'tinkering' with it. And there's too many folks, regardless of the OS platform they're running, who are all too eager to jump at the very newest stuff the instant it comes out. For others, newer is just always 'better.' And then you get the 'stick-in-the muds' like me, who are more than happy to stick with something that, to others, is years old and only fit for the scrap-heap. For the very simple reason that it works, and continues to do so......and I no longer need to worry about constantly 'patching, and 'upgrading', and 'updating'.
Ever hear of the 'hamster-wheel of consumerism'?
I've used ext3 since day one of my Puppy journey, 4½ years ago. Not once has it ever let me down, or become corrupted.....and the 'fsck' stuff has always worked the way it's supposed to. To me, that represents maturity, and stability. And at the end of the day, it's a personal choice in any case; 'one man's meat is another man's poison', and all that.....
We do have that choice.
------------------------------------------
Your example about Firefox is somewhat 'flawed', BTW. You know why FF has always had so many 'bugs' in it? Nothing to do with how it's written, or owt like that; it's because for years the Mozilla devs spent more time 'in-fighting' & back-stabbing each other than they ever did in writing good code. That's over & above the fact that any large chunk of code is of necessity going to have more 'bugs' in it than any small chunk.....regardless of whatever FS it's running on. That's the nature of the beast; it's the law of averages.
It's only in the last 18 months or so that they've finally pulled their fingers out of their assholes and actually knuckled down to bringing Firefox, kicking & screaming, into the modern age. Quantum is the result; FF could have been like this 10 years or more ago. If it had, I would never have switched and become a long-term 'Chrome man'. FF for me was only ever a backup browser for a long time. Now I don't care which one I use; there's finally little enough to choose between the two of 'em that it now makes no difference.
