choosing a filesystem for my installation

robrene · 2010-01-01 14:03:13

Hey all

I'm going to install arch linux on my laptop today. I'm pretty clear on the whole installation process, the only question I have is what the ultimate FS is.
I won't be using encryption, this laptop will mainly be used for development (think lots of compiling etc) and since I like to tinker I'd enjoy it if there are no file losses on a sudden crash/forced shutdown.

Benchmarks I found online only tried to find the best all-round FS with many irrelevant tests and they were never very conclusive either...

I hope someone here can help me. Happy new year!

lucke · 2010-01-01 14:38:15

Ext4 seems to be the best option currently.

sHyLoCk · 2010-01-01 15:16:29

The best way to decide would be to create a poll in off-topic, asking for the partition layouts of other Archers and then deciding for yourself.

graysky · 2010-01-01 15:23:56

+1 for ext4 probably no need for a poll though. Topic has been discussed ad nauseum - just search.

rusty99 · 2010-01-01 15:45:45

Always found JFS very good.

sHyLoCk · 2010-01-01 16:10:18

The topic may have been discussed a million times but the choices vary and change of each users. Anyway, I'd say:

/ -> Reiser
/tmp -> tmpfs
/boot -> ext2 / reiser
/home and eveything else -> xfs

robrene · 2010-01-01 16:33:11

When I read the relevant part of the Beginners' Guide, I get the general idea that JFS is the best. Wikipedia says that JFS is no longer maintained though. Is this bad?

It says ext4 can have bugs since it's relatively new, and I recall some people having trouble with it when Ubuntu decided to take it as a default. Something about loss of data if I recall correctly.

The guide also says that ext2 is generaly a good idea for /boot, I would like to know why. Is it because of the reduced overhead of journaling?

Last time I installed Arch I don't recall it having an option for Reiser4...

The guide also speaks of "large files" and "large filesystems", saying XFS is particularly good for these. What is "large" though? This laptop has a 160GB drive, the largest partition I'd have would probably be /home at 100GB...

My initial idea would be:

/ -> JFS
/boot -> ext2
/home -> JFS

I would like some opinions about why Reiser might be a better choice for / here. Also, what would the advantage be of using a different FS for /var or /tmp?

Last edited by robrene (2010-01-01 16:36:23)

sHyLoCk · 2010-01-01 16:45:51

Ext4 is not new , I bet the article is old. It is stable and safe to use, although I recall 2.6.32 or 2.6.31.5 kernel had some issues with ext4 but that have been fixed. Reiser4 is still unstable, reiser3 is still good for smaller files.

theapodan · 2010-01-01 19:37:29

robrene wrote:

When I read the relevant part of the Beginners' Guide, I get the general idea that JFS is the best. Wikipedia says that JFS is no longer maintained though. Is this bad?
...
The guide also says that ext2 is generaly a good idea for /boot, I would like to know why. Is it because of the reduced overhead of journaling?
...
My initial idea would be:
/ -> JFS
/boot -> ext2
/home -> JFS Also, what would the advantage be of using a different FS for /var or /tmp?

That layout looks like mine, but I don't have a separate /boot, and do have a separate /var.

I wasn't aware that active development on JFS was stopping, but wouldn't be bothered by it from a stability standpoint. I've used JFS for years and haven't experienced any problems. The only feature I'd like is a way to defragment, but I think lack of good defragmentation capability is an issue with all the linux fs's.

The reason for a separate /var or /tmp is to prevent / from being filled up in the event that a process goes out of control writing to either.

Sometimes /boot is made ext2 if / is some arcane or bizarre fs that grub can't boot from (like btrfs). I wouldn't bother with a separate /boot if you will be using JFS for /

skottish · 2010-01-01 19:44:35

I've been using ext4 for a long time now and I have no problems. There were some issues between the file system and the way people coded their programs, but the kernel devs forced a fix because too many people were blaming them instead of the application developers.

robrene · 2010-01-01 20:08:15

A seperate /boot must be an mental artifact from when I used encryption... However, according to the first result in Google for "grub jfs" it is not recommended to combine GRUB and JFS.

What would happen if / gets filled up by a rogue process spamming /var or /tmp?

Right now I'm still deciding between ReiserFS and JFS for /. It seems that ReiserFS needs more time to mount, which would increase my boot time. Seeing I use this laptop in uni and I hate waiting for it to boot every lecture, that is a min. Also, when I do put /var and /tmp on a seperate partition, what would be a good FS choice here?

patroclo7 · 2010-01-01 20:48:05

Reiserfs is expecially good for /var, where the small files of pacman reside. This will make pacman noticeably faster. Since /var is probably not that large, the boot time is not going to increase that much.

Last edited by patroclo7 (2010-01-01 20:49:59)

theapodan · 2010-01-01 20:50:33

robrene wrote:

A seperate /boot must be an mental artifact from when I used encryption... However, according to the first result in Google for "grub jfs" it is not recommended to combine GRUB and JFS.

That referenced website is old (circa 2005 maybe). Support for JFS in grub was iffy some years ago when it was new, but is now fine.

guzz46 · 2010-01-01 20:54:47

If you are worried about boot time then I suggest you go with ext4, I recently switched / from JFS to ext4 and got a boot increase of around 4-5 seconds

robrene · 2010-01-02 13:32:15

Alright, after some more reading up, this is what I've come up with:

/ -> ext4
/home -> ext4
/tmp -> tmpfs
/var -> reiserfs

I have 2GB of RAM, I never use hibernate and I don't think I'll need swap. In case I ever do I'll just create a swap file on my root partition, no need for a whole extra swap partition I think.

I decided to go for ext4 after all, seeing it is actively developed and JFS is not. Is there any optimization flags (besides noatime) that I should know about? Also, in order to circumvent that problem with 0 byte files and/or data loss, do I need a seperate flag for that? Or is everything just dandy nowadays?

graysky · 2010-01-02 13:36:37

I use the nodelalloc modifier in my /etc/fstab for all my ext4 partitions.

/dev/sda1    /       ext4    defaults,relatime,nodelalloc     0       1
LABEL=Homes    /home   ext4    defaults,relatime,nodelalloc     0       2

Last edited by graysky (2010-01-02 13:41:07)

jolinfire · 2010-01-02 14:58:04

/boot => ext2fs
/ and /home => ext4fs.

And no problem with ext4fs since day 1 of this install (may 3rd, 2009)...

h_al · 2010-01-02 15:09:27

I've been using ext3 for years and no problems at all. So I guess see what you've been using all over the years and go for it.

robrene · 2010-01-02 15:12:10

nodelalloc causes a significant performance hit apparently. I think I'll let it slide for now and get it once I start noticing crashes myself.

@h_al: The reason that I'm looking at the different possibilities is because changing a filesystem is not trivial, it's only feasible when doing a fresh install really. Seeing I'm in no hurry to install and that I'm interested in making my system a little faster possibly, I'm checking out the other possibilities. Also, added nerd cred

graysky · 2010-01-02 16:13:29

robrene wrote:

nodelalloc causes a significant performance hit apparently. I think I'll let it slide for now and get it once I start noticing crashes myself.
@h_al: The reason that I'm looking at the different possibilities is because changing a filesystem is not trivial, it's only feasible when doing a fresh install really. Seeing I'm in no hurry to install and that I'm interested in making my system a little faster possibly, I'm checking out the other possibilities. Also, added nerd cred

1) I wouldn't classify the performance hit as 'significant' by any means. I can't notice a difference but if you're concerned about data integrity, use it.
2) Changing a filesystem is indeed trivial provided that you have temp space enough to hold the data while you reformat the partition to whatever format you want. Just though morning I reformatted my root partition (ext4 --> ext4) when it began to show some fragmentation. It's as simple as using rsync or cp -a to move to a temp space, reformat, then move back. If you do change the fs type, just remember to fix it in your /etc/fstab before you reboot.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-01-01 14:03:13

choosing a filesystem for my installation

#2 2010-01-01 14:38:15

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#3 2010-01-01 15:16:29

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#4 2010-01-01 15:23:56

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#5 2010-01-01 15:45:45

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#6 2010-01-01 16:10:18

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#7 2010-01-01 16:33:11

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#8 2010-01-01 16:45:51

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#9 2010-01-01 19:37:29

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#10 2010-01-01 19:44:35

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#11 2010-01-01 20:08:15

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#12 2010-01-01 20:48:05

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#13 2010-01-01 20:50:33

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#14 2010-01-01 20:54:47

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#15 2010-01-02 13:32:15

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#16 2010-01-02 13:36:37

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#17 2010-01-02 14:58:04

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#18 2010-01-02 15:09:27

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#19 2010-01-02 15:12:10

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

#20 2010-01-02 16:13:29

Re: choosing a filesystem for my installation

Board footer