Which filesystem should I use?

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-17 02:14:09

Sure, why not add a "what's your filesystem?" poll? Thanks.

jnengland77 · 2005-09-17 03:31:13

grrr when I run xfs_db> frag I get segmentation fault . I think i might reinstall using JFS tho, looking at the benchmarks it seems to do fairly well.

ozar · 2005-09-17 03:33:50

ext3 always works for me, and speed hasn't been an issue

iBertus · 2005-09-17 04:47:53

Maybe you should mix-n-match depending on the partitions usage. ReiserFS makes a good one for /var and maybe JFS/XFS for /home if you have lots of big media files. I'm not sure which is best for / but I'm using JFS right now for it.

nightfrost · 2005-09-17 07:54:48

iBertus wrote:

Maybe you should mix-n-match depending on the partitions usage. ReiserFS makes a good one for /var and maybe JFS/XFS for /home if you have lots of big media files. I'm not sure which is best for / but I'm using JFS right now for it.

That's what I do;

reiserfs             487M  127M  360M  27% /
ext2                 61M   43M   16M  74% /boot
reiserfs             4.7G  1.5G  3.3G  31% /home
reiser4              1.8G  1.3G  559M  70% /opt
reiser4              2.7G  2.3G  421M  85% /usr
reiser4              4.5G  4.1G  424M  91% /var
xfs -> reiser4    42G   21G   22G  49% /home/shared

/ uses reiserfs since I consider that to be the most conservative filesystem (everything MrCoul said about ext, I can say about reiserfs). /boot uses ext2 out of old habit. /home is reiserfs for different reasons; it won't get as fragmented as XFS, and I will have the possibility to run beagle if it ever starts working (which I wouldn't have with reiser4). /opt /usr & /var are reiser4 because of the performance boost. /home/shared used to be XFS, but I've changed it to reiser4 as well after the issues I had...

jnengland77 · 2005-09-17 18:06:29

Ok, might have to resize some things and remove some swap space from both Linux and WIn XP as I don't use it much. I just have / as one partition. I'll see what I can do tho. Thanks for the suggestions!

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-17 18:12:07

My reccomendation for the average desktop user would be either ReiserFS or JFS. According to benchmarks, Reiser seems to top the performance department, while JFS performs only slightly worse (and better for some things) but is more CPU-efficient.

I suppose XFS would be good for /home if you regularly dealt with huge files, but using XFS for / is probably not a good idea - it is extraordinarily slow when dealing with anything other than large files.

jondkent · 2005-09-17 19:27:48

I suppose that as I suggested XFS I should add a reply to some of the comments here.

As mentioned I've used XFS on a Gentoo workstation of mine for years and I can't say I've ever noticed a drop in performance because of this. I would _never_ recommend Reiser 4, its too bleeding edge and a moving target as someone mentioned.

Ext3 is a interesting option because you can mount it up as ext2 should the journal go pear shaped (help me out a few times). But as ext3 has caused me major probs in the past I will not use it myself.

Bottom line really is I do not believe that if you are Joe Average user you will ever noticed the differance without resorting to performance tools.

Jon

iBertus · 2005-09-17 22:46:02

The only time I can tell a difference between my JFS partition and my ReiserFS partition is when deleting files or extracting lots of files from an archive. ReiserFS is much faster doing those two things. Everything else is pretty even.

shadowhand · 2005-09-18 00:54:32

I'm going to jump in here really late and without reading the whole thread.

My experience with various filesystems:
+ Reiser4 is great. It's fast, maybe almost too fast, but it's also ever so slightly unstable. I wouldn't recommend using for it /, but maybe for /home or /var it would be alright.
+ ReiserFS (aka Reiser3) is also great, but not significantly faster than ext3. It handles small files really well (just like R4) and (as the benchmarks show) deals with creating/removing lots of files very efficiently (spelling?).
+ JFS: never used it. Wouldn't use it for desktop because it was designed for server use, but then again, most *NIX filesystems are...
+ XFS: never used it, but would try using it for a HTPC DVR setup because of the large amount of large files necessary for movie rips and DVR recordings (to pause, play, rewind, etc. live TV). Otherwise, not useful for any part of a standard Linux install, imho, unless you have a special partition for large files (movies maybe? *shrug*).
+ EXT3: ah, the "standard" Linux FS. I've never, ever had any issues with ext3. When combined with dir_index, it gives ReiserFS a run for it's money, which makes me wonder why dir_index isn't enabled by default. Combined with extended attributes, it makes a terriffic desktop FS, nice mix of stable, fast, and future proof.

My recommendation is to use R4 if you can deal with it's slight hiccups (nothing big, but sometimes MD5 sums and such won't compute right, I've had a couple of files corrupted by it) and need something really fast. Use R3 if you deal with a lot of small files, or pack and unpack archives a lot. Use JFS for a router, firewall, server, etc. (Imho) There are better things for desktop filesystems. If you want something that can be recovered, or need something stable and still fast, use EXT3 with dir_index.

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-18 03:44:52

Question: is ext3 with dir_index any better than default ext3 with small files or large numbers of folders?

iBertus · 2005-09-18 07:05:04

IIRC, dir_index make ext3 use b-trees to index directories and should be much faster with lots of files in a single directory. I don't think it makes much difference with small files tho.

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-18 10:22:22

Hmm... looked up some benchmarks on the Namsys website and found that ext3 with dir_index is as fast as Reiser4 or faster in the benchmarks where it is used. Unfortunately, that's only 2 or 3 benchmarks, so Namsys's benchmarks create more questions than they answer.

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-20 01:25:24

Wow - according to these benchmarks,
ext3 with dir_index sucks. :shock: Me sticks with Reiser3.6 for now.

iBertus · 2005-09-20 01:26:59

According to ANY benchmark, ANY filesystem sucks and is great at the same time. I'm not a big fan of benchmarks and prefer real usage experience. That said, I'm still looking for a filesystem that don't suck.

jnengland77 · 2005-09-20 02:23:58

I was going to test JFS and Ext3 + dir_index but I can't get Arch to boot all the way... see this thread and hope you can help me.
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=15254

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-20 22:37:33

Hee hee... Just switched over to JFS, largely because I think Hans Reiser is being a dick. It's snappier with the stock kernel than ReiserFS was with the archck kernel.

(Maybe this should be Arch's default FS, instead of ReiserFS?)

kensai · 2005-10-20 03:31:15

I'm using jfs for the first time and I'm impressed is a superb filesystem. I'll try it for some time to see if I like it better than ReiserFS.

iBertus · 2005-10-20 04:03:48

JFS is great for most purposes. I'll probably stick with it until reiser4 is adopted into the kernel

IceRAM · 2005-10-20 18:59:18

Does anyone know a NEW benchmark on filesystem usage?
(new = recently done)

I remember there was something online, but it was quite old.

Arch Linux

#26 2005-09-17 02:14:09

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#27 2005-09-17 03:31:13

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#28 2005-09-17 03:33:50

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#29 2005-09-17 04:47:53

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#30 2005-09-17 07:54:48

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#31 2005-09-17 18:06:29

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#32 2005-09-17 18:12:07

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#33 2005-09-17 19:27:48

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#34 2005-09-17 22:46:02

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#35 2005-09-18 00:54:32

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#36 2005-09-18 03:44:52

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#37 2005-09-18 07:05:04

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#38 2005-09-18 10:22:22

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#39 2005-09-20 01:25:24

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#40 2005-09-20 01:26:59

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#41 2005-09-20 02:23:58

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#42 2005-09-20 22:37:33

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#43 2005-10-20 03:31:15

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#44 2005-10-20 04:03:48

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

#45 2005-10-20 18:59:18

Re: Which filesystem should I use?

Board footer