Risk of data loss by changing from ext4 to ext2 for an USB?

[floppy]

hello,
I had choosen the ext4 format for a boot USB of my P4 HP DC7100 (with a full TCL install on it): this usb is only read (or few writing on it due to TC updates or other TC testfiles).
So far I am aware, ext4 would accelerate the wear of the memory stick in case of writing phase; ext2 would be a more appropriate format in case the USB stick is written. Correct?
Regarding reading speed: is ext4 or ext2 better?
So, I am thinking in changing to ext2 (because it is a boot USB, and everything run in RAM, this is probably not mandatory only due to the wear).
Last question: If I use GPARTED for changing from ext4 to ext2, it would delete all data?
Thanks.
And enjoy your week-end.

[bmarkus]

Keep .ext4 Running system on ext2 which is not a journaling file system you are risking a lot. Journalig will not significantly reduce lifetime.

[oeai]

i got ext4-fs errors in ext2, maybe you're right and that's the cause of DOS and flash hard-format, that i've just did, will try with ext4 (it was ext3 before)

[oeai]

i found that ext2 ext3 are not included into kernel config in 6.3

[bmarkus]

i found that ext2 ext3 are not included into kernel config in 6.3

According to kernel config ext2 and ext3 are handled by ext4 module.

[core-user]

You can normally add the options noatime or relatime to your fstab entries to reduce writes to disk.

[jls]

How to do this since fstab is autogenerated?

[gerald_clark]

That is the default, so you don't need to.