those 128 GB cards

Started Jan 19, 2010 | Discussions thread
bionet Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
ext2 is much more reliable

MWP wrote:

ext2 is no more reliable than FAT32.
Neither have support for journals.

Sure it is.

How long have you used these file systems? I've used FAT since 1992 & ext2 since late 1997, and the worst I ever experienced with ext2 was the loss of 1 or 2 files (crash during write / partition table update). Even serious damage can usually be repaired.

With FAT on the other hand I've had completely destroyed file systems several times and lost or truncated files so often I can't count it anymore. Or nice effects like infinitely nested directories where deleting one file deletes your whole data. How prone FAT is to this especially stuck out in the DOS days where crashes were common.

Ext2 continuously uses re-organizing/cleanup procedures to reduce fragmentation which also reduces risk in case of crash. This had a huge impact on speed on old systems, same for NTFS.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
T3
T3
T3
MWP
T3
T3
T3
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow