What are the big differences between ext3 and ext4 from a generic user's perspective? I heard that sticking with ext3 is wiser. Is that true?
EDIT: One thing I want to note is that I am a dual OS user (Windows & Ubuntu), so not being able to mount a drive (ext4) from Windows is a big negative for me. But, ext3 has this privilege.
A few years ago I'd say stick with
ext3
but nowadaysext4
is better. A recent (May 16, 2011) round up from thegeekstuff.com sums it up rather nicely:A very good comparison from 2009 on linuxologist.com has a graph about write performance with 4 GB:
and also has some other information on ext4.
I myself have had zero problems with ext4.
If you need to share a partition with Windows you will need
ext3
. I myself have given up on Windows so I have everything set toext4
and use a USB stick to transfer data to a Windows machine (mainly at work).What you can do for a setup is the following:
Then you can make the last one a shared partition for both OS's.
The only reasons I can think of at the current time not to use ext4 are compatibility with older systems, and, last time I tried it, ext4 had problems with losing data when used on flash media (ie. Thumb drives et cetra.) That second one I haven't tested in about six months, so it may have been fixed. Otherwise, the performance and reliability are large improvements over ext3.
Edit: Ten years later, the data corruption on cheap USB flash devices has most certainly been fixed and some distros aren't bothering to enable ext3 drivers by default.