Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

jey · 2009-01-01 09:31:11

So, I got an Acer Aspire One a few days ago, and I thought this would be a good time to try Arch.
Usually, I just go for ext3 (seems the most common, right?)
But I looked into JFS, and it was said to have lower CPU usage, which seems good for a netbook.
Someone also mentioned something about XFS too (they told me to make sure my system never crashed with it though )

(I actually got some NFS stale file handlers errors on bootup, while trying to access /var/logs/dmesg.log and a few other files, but I couldn't get rid of this issue, so I'm going to reformat/install.)

So which should I choose? ext3/JFS/XFS?

Wintervenom · 2009-01-01 09:35:32

Well, you already know my answer. [IRC.]

Last edited by Wintervenom (2009-08-05 14:54:29)

patroclo7 · 2009-01-01 12:12:13

Choose ext4

pyther · 2009-01-01 14:52:52

I'd also say go with ext4

Zeist · 2009-01-01 15:17:38

You may want to consider having a non-journaling file system to save on writes to your ssd drive.

Last edited by Zeist (2009-01-01 15:17:53)

jey · 2009-01-01 20:19:42

Mine has a HD, rather than a SSD, btw.

I think I'll wait until kernel .28 goes into core, then I will install that and go with ext4.

robertp · 2009-01-02 08:48:13

I prefer ext3 file-system because I also have Windows on my computer and I need a simple way to access my Linux partitions under Windows. And for this Ext2 IFS is working great:)

But if you have only Linux and you don't run enterprise servers on it then JFS, XFS, ReiserFS are almost as good (or bad) as ext3.

Regarding ext4 I would wait with using it for at least half a year and see how stable and safe it is because data safety is very important for me.

pyther · 2009-01-02 12:17:05

^^
meh it been in testing long enough, it won't eat your files, or else the devs wouldn't have put in the kernel (marked as stable)
ext4 is fine

Edit: fixed typo

Last edited by pyther (2009-01-02 15:27:13)

b9anders · 2009-01-02 12:47:46

ext4 has been tested for a long time now. If the developers have marked it as stable now, it is because it is stable enough for critical tasks.

kensai · 2009-01-02 13:36:56

Inf act, I am using ext4 extensively,a dn abusing it since kernel .28 got into testing. EXT4 is a great filesystem. Still looking for btrfs tough which will be included in .29, but not in a stable manner, so don't get your hopes high.

jey · 2009-01-02 18:22:00

Ok, ext4 it will be.

*waits for .28 to be in [core]*

Arch Linux

#1 2009-01-01 09:31:11

Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#2 2009-01-01 09:35:32

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#3 2009-01-01 12:12:13

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#4 2009-01-01 14:52:52

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#5 2009-01-01 15:17:38

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#6 2009-01-01 20:19:42

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#7 2009-01-02 08:48:13

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#8 2009-01-02 12:17:05

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#9 2009-01-02 12:47:46

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#10 2009-01-02 13:36:56

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

#11 2009-01-02 18:22:00

Re: Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

Board footer