Converting an ext3 filesystem to ext4
in [General Linux]
|
From: despen on 3 Jul 2010 14:51 mjt <myswtestYOURSHOES(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:42:28 -0400 > despen(a)verizon.net wrote: > >> Well don't let FACTS get in the way of a good rant: >> >> http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-convert-ext3-to-ext4-file-system.html >> >> A few seconds in Google turned up the above link which is as simple as >> issuing a couple of commands. >> >> I didn't bother to do more searches, for all I know one of the built >> in GUI tools may do the conversion too. > > You didn't address the OP's original request. It's not > that they don't know how to do the conversion, but their > concern is whether existing files are treated as "true" > ext4 (extents) files after the conversion. > > They aren't - there is no "conversion in place" that > happens, unless you off-load the files and then copy > them back into the filesystem. > > Even if you run a defrag utility, it won't reconstitute > a file into an ext4 entry if it's not considered for > de-fragmentation. I must have missed that part of the requirement. The file system is converted to ext4. That meets the subject line requirement. If the filesystem takes on even more ext4 attributes as it get's written to, I fail to see a problem.
From: Balwinder S Dheeman on 3 Jul 2010 18:15 On 07/03/10 21:42, Kenny McCormack wrote: > 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. Linux (mount) already does that; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4 -- Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709 Anu'z Linux(a)HOME (Unix Shoppe) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192 Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
From: mjt on 3 Jul 2010 19:42 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:51:02 -0400 despen(a)verizon.net wrote: [snipped] > I must have missed that part of the requirement. > The file system is converted to ext4. > That meets the subject line requirement. > > If the filesystem takes on even more ext4 attributes as it > get's written to, I fail to see a problem. The OP stated, "Does it mean that I'll have a full ext4 filesystem only *after* "the online defrag tool" has finished its job?" IOW, they want to know if all the files in the filesystem will be true ext4 files (w/extents) - that's how I read it anyway :) So, it's not just that they want to know how to convert ext3->4, but they want clarification about a statement the OP found in a tech article about conversion. -- Famous last words: (1) Don't unplug it, it will just take a moment to fix. (2) Let's take the shortcut, he can't see us from there. (3) What happens if you touch these two wires tog---- (4) We won't need reservations. (5) It's always sunny there this time of the year. (6) Don't worry, it's not loaded. (7) They'd never (be stupid enough to) make him a manager. <<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: Aragorn on 3 Jul 2010 21:59 On Saturday 03 July 2010 17:14 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody identifying as 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. Absolute hogwash, and echoing a number of known C.O.L.A. Wintrolls. Not all GNU/Linux distributors are commercial entities, and those that are had to compete with a virtual, if not an absolute monopoly on the x86 architecture. That means that in order for a commercial GNU/Linux distribution to get installed, it had to be installed on a machine that had Windows on it, and for many users, given Microsoft's way of conditioning the user and locking them into a single vendor, said machine could even still have Windows on it even after GNU/Linux was installed - as a dualboot configuration. The above is merely a consequence of a market economy where a monopoly exists, and considering a 5 to 7% market share on the x86 desktop for GNU/Linux - and not 1% as the Wintrolls claim - after Microsoft's monopoly was already in place, I'd say that GNU/Linux has done very well for itself. The estimated market share on servers - both x86 and other architectures - even lies around 60%, which is even more astonishing, given that in that market segment, GNU/Linux had to go up against proprietary UNIX systems. It also shows the difference in chances for GNU/Linux between a market with a monopoly and a market without a monopoly - Microsoft has never had a stronghold of the server market segment. John Reiser's reply up above may have been a bit terse, but it was a correct assessment, and I doubt that what he writes on Usenet would have any influence on "market shares". > NTFS comes with a simple utility that works that converts > FAT to NTFS (in place). Linux would do well to emulate that. You are also neglecting to mention that the FAT to NTFS converter only converts "in place" for any non-system partitions or partitions that are actively in use. I have in a past now fortunately long gone used NT 4.0, and it used MS-DOS to install the base system off the CD onto a FAT 16 filesystem - NT 4.0 did not support vfat/FAT32 yet - and then when it rebooted from the hard disk, it would first stay in the equivalent of a boot-up filesystem repair console on GNU/Linux - but without the interactivity - while it was converting the "sea drive" into NTFS. And then, upon finishing the conversion, it would continue booting into the GUI and present you with a fresh NTFS filesystem... with read, write and execute permission and ownership for *every* user account. For those with little understanding of filesystems, ext4 may appear to be "just another upgrade" to ext3, the way ext3 was just ext2 with journaling. However, there are far more differences between ext4 and ext3 than there are between FAT and NTFS. At least, with the solution presented to the OP, he can choose from either a delayed conversion while using the filesystem in realtime, or a fast conversion by making a backup to an ext4 filesystem, reformatting the original ext3 to ext4 and then restoring the backup. -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: John Thompson on 4 Jul 2010 00:53
On 2010-07-03, Kenny McCormack <gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com> 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. Maybe so, but anytime you do low-level changes to your filesystems it is prudent to have a backup. -- -John (john(a)os2.dhs.org) |