Converting an ext3 filesystem to ext4
in [General Linux]
|
From: mjt on 3 Jul 2010 11:38 On 03 Jul 2010 15:06:37 GMT HamRadio <toglimi.hamradio(a)toglimi.quipo.it> wrote: > However my question was specific to particular aspects of the > conversion of an ext3 filesystem to ext4, *not* about which one is > better... You'd be surprised how many people (home users/hobbyists) want to change to something newer (like going from ext3->4) just because it's cooler or the latest thing, not because it offers any technical advantages, which is why I asked. -- I'm proud to be paying taxes in the United States. The only thing is - I could be just as proud for half the money. - Arthur Godfrey <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: notbob on 3 Jul 2010 12:09 On 2010-07-03, Kenny McCormack <gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com> wrote: > It is attitudes and posts like this that show why MS is beating Linux in > most markets. NTFS comes with a simple utility that works that converts > FAT to NTFS (in place). Linux would do well to emulate that. Yes, M$ is a just a plethora of enviable choices and features. Let's see, M$ can use/read what? ....two file systems? ....FAT and NTFS? Wow! While linux can only use/read a FEW DOZEN files systems, including FAT and NTFS? Yeah, you M$ stooges really have us on the run. nb
From: Kenny McCormack on 3 Jul 2010 12:12 In article <UgJXn.6743$Lj2.6137(a)newsfe05.iad>, notbob <notbob(a)nothome.com> wrote: >On 2010-07-03, Kenny McCormack <gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com> wrote: > >> It is attitudes and posts like this that show why MS is beating Linux in >> most markets. NTFS comes with a simple utility that works that converts >> FAT to NTFS (in place). Linux would do well to emulate that. > >Yes, M$ is a just a plethora of enviable choices and features. Let's >see, M$ can use/read what? ....two file systems? ....FAT and NTFS? >Wow! While linux can only use/read a FEW DOZEN files systems, >including FAT and NTFS? Yeah, you M$ stooges really have us on the >run. > >noob Now, now. Be nice. All I'm saying is that an in-place convert utility is a good thing to have. It eases the upward migration path. Everything else you're wailin about is only in your head. -- Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. - John Kenneth Galbraith -
From: Kenny McCormack on 3 Jul 2010 12:15 In article <pan.2010.07.03.15.14.10(a)toglimi.quipo.it>, HamRadio <toglimi.hamradio(a)toglimi.quipo.it> wrote: >Il Sat, 03 Jul 2010 06:56:17 -0700, John Reiser ha scritto: > >> Asking questions like >> you did strongly suggests a non-ignorable probability that you *WILL* >> scribble *ALL* your data. > >Thanks a lot for all your suggestions, but my questions regarding that >specific topic, that is the conversion of an ext3 filesystem to ext4, >remain unanswered... I think that if you ignore the hysterics, you do get the underlying answer, which is: "No, there is no in-place conversion tool." You have to do like JR suggested - copy it out to somewhere else, then reformat and copy it back in. -- > No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me, > why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere. CLC in a nutshell.
From: Kenny McCormack on 3 Jul 2010 12:18
In article <io24g7-g8j.ln1(a)llondel.org>, Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote: >Kenny McCormack wrote: > >> In article <17qdnZ7dk6QP3LLR4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com>, >> John Reiser <jreiserfl(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> ... >>>If you cannot afford to buy or borrow such an "extra" drive, >>>then you certainly cannot afford to scribble all your data. >>>Asking questions like you did strongly suggests a non-ignorable >>>probability that you *WILL* scribble *ALL* your data. >> >> It is attitudes and posts like this that show why MS is beating Linux in >> most markets. NTFS comes with a simple utility that works that converts >> FAT to NTFS (in place). Linux would do well to emulate that. >> >But the smart people would still take a backup first. An in-place utility is >nice to use after the backup, but most people who do it will just run the >conversion without taking precautions. Most will be just fine, but there's >always that chance... No argument as to your basic point. Of course, to be snarky, I could observe that the truly smart people would have no need to "take a backup first", since their normal in-house procedures would have taken care of that as usual (I.e., their usual overnight backups would have run that day as they run every day). (Yes, I know that you might lose the "changes since the overnight ran", but that's a normal risk that is always present. Let's not dwell on it.) -- Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to comp.lang.c... |