Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

thesimpsons · 2009-03-30 22:08:33

When I setupping Arch, there are many kinds of filesystem. Ext2, ext3, ext4, reiserfs, xfs and jfs. Which kind of filesystem should I choice? I don't know the differents.

Thank you.

Last edited by thesimpsons (2009-03-31 13:43:18)

dyscoria · 2009-03-30 22:15:55

Short answer: Just use ext3. It's proven to be reliable and is generally the default filesystem for most linux distributions.

Long answer: They all have their own benefits. Search wikipedia or google to find out more.

Oh and welcome to Arch Linux

Last edited by dyscoria (2009-03-30 22:16:15)

fukawi2 · 2009-03-30 22:22:49

Welcome to Arch, and this is a topic that could go on for pages, so just use ext3 until you learn over time about all the others.

Wintervenom · 2009-03-30 23:41:00

thesimpsons wrote:

When setting up Arch, there are many kinds of filesystems: ext2, ext3, ext4, reiserfs, xfs and jfs. Which kind of filesystem should I choose? I don't know the difference.
Thank you.
I'm learning English. If there are any grammar or other mistakes, please tell me.

If you're not sure or want the safest, most stable choice, choose ext3.
If you're you want better performance, but and you're ready to take a small risk if your system goes suddenly down for some reason, perhaps you might choose ext4.
If you have a slow computer whose CPU is easily pegged, you might choose JFS, but it is also slightly risky if your system suddenly goes down.

Welcome $HOME.

Last edited by Wintervenom (2009-03-31 00:57:55)

fukawi2 · 2009-03-31 00:17:05

Wintervenom wrote:

If you're not sure or want the safest, most stable choice, choose ext3.
If you want better performance, and you're ready to take a small risk if your system goes suddenly down for some reason, perhaps you might choose ext4.
If you have a slow computer whose CPU is easily pegged, you might choose JFS, but it is also slightly risky if your system suddenly goes down.

Sorry, couldn't resist

Last edited by fukawi2 (2009-03-31 00:17:18)

Wintervenom · 2009-03-31 00:58:02

[Hides his bottle of White-Out and whistles.]

evilgold · 2009-03-31 01:26:05

If you dont know the difference, chances are it doesnt matter much for your purposes and you should go with ext3. If you have lots of large files (over 1gb), you might want to use XFS or ext4, they both have extra features that makes them more effecient when working with large files.

adamlau · 2009-03-31 05:13:40

ext2 for /boot with mkfs.xfs -f -l logdev=/dev/sdb1,size=64m,lazy-count=1 /dev/sdaX everywhere else.

ChoK · 2009-03-31 08:42:37

Can't help but laugh here you will scare him away with those geeky commands
I think you should explain him what they do so he learns more.

Also I suggest you to have at least 3 partitions on your drive, one for /boot in ext2 (30 to 50 Mo should do fine), one for / : the system, and one for /home (your personal data) this way if you break something, you don't lose your personal things.

For the filesystem I'd say go ext3 it's the standard, most resilient one, and it should meet any of your needs on your desktop.

brazzmonkey · 2009-03-31 08:59:34

I've tried many file systems. Ext3 is the most reliable (it's the only one that always recovered after power outages and such).
Use ext2 for /boot and ext3 for anything else.

patroclo7 · 2009-03-31 09:54:05

Consider the hypothesis of a separate /var partition in reiserfs: pacman will be faster.

dunz0r · 2009-03-31 10:23:52

I myself prefer reiserfs for all purposes except really large (15GB<) partitions on which I usually go for XFS

perbh · 2009-03-31 12:36:49

ext2 on /boot
otherwise reiserfs, reiserfs, reiserfs ...

Hmmm - did anyone mention reiserfs?

Last edited by perbh (2009-03-31 12:37:40)

EmaRsk · 2009-03-31 13:29:14

I'm not been using reiserfs since quite a long time, so hopefully things have been fixed by now, but I suffered from major data corruption with it (system f***ed up, reinstall mandatory, bye bye to lots of data). That's why I switched to ext2/ext3.
Just my 2¢ worth horror story from the past. As I said, maybe reiserfs is rock-stable now.

perbh · 2009-03-31 13:59:14

@EmaRsk
Well - there you go.
I have had horrible experiences with ext2/ext3/xfs after a crash but never with reiserfs (actually, I stand corrected - _once_ it happened to me with reiserfs - in some 5 years of use!).
I have rather suspect power - it will hiccup 2-3 times a day which causes my machines to reboot. ext2/ext3 will fail every so often, reiserfs does not (I know - I should get a UPS!)

Want to screw up xfs? Just put it on a usb-stick, mount it (manually, without hal and policy kit) and write to it. Then just yank it out without umount'ing. Goodbye to all data (even what was there before!)

Last edited by perbh (2009-03-31 14:01:16)

X/ax · 2009-03-31 14:19:00

I think it's more of a persnonal thing. I for one have had never any issues with ext2/ext3, but I've never used anything else either...

sokuban · 2009-03-31 15:51:44

patroclo7 wrote:

Consider the hypothesis of a separate /var partition in reiserfs: pacman will be faster.

I have been a happy reiserfs /var user for a few years until recently when I switched to ext4 and made everything ext4. While a reiserfs /var is good, with the current state of Mr. Reiser, I'm not sure if using reiserfs is such a smart idea. I think it might get left in the dark in a couple more years.

Ext4 is officially stable, although it is fairly new. It has a bug (some people will say this is not a "bug", but it causes problems so I'm calling it a "bug") that essentially can result in data loss after a crash. I'm too lazy to explain it all here (you can find explanations all over the net) but if you have a UPS then you should be fine.

And whatever you do. Do not put xfs on /var. If you really want an xfs root, then be sure to put another filesystem on /var.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-03-30 22:08:33

Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#2 2009-03-30 22:15:55

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#3 2009-03-30 22:22:49

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#4 2009-03-30 23:41:00

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#5 2009-03-31 00:17:05

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#6 2009-03-31 00:58:02

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#7 2009-03-31 01:26:05

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#8 2009-03-31 05:13:40

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#9 2009-03-31 08:42:37

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#10 2009-03-31 08:59:34

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#11 2009-03-31 09:54:05

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#12 2009-03-31 10:23:52

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#13 2009-03-31 12:36:49

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#14 2009-03-31 13:29:14

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#15 2009-03-31 13:59:14

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#16 2009-03-31 14:19:00

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

#17 2009-03-31 15:51:44

Re: Which kind of filesystem should I choice?

Board footer