Linux File Systems (recommend)

[ArcticFox]

OK, so I'm prepared to install Mandrake, but from the last time I remembered that I was able to choose different file systems to use on that partition. Their was EXT2, EXT3, and If their was another one or two I can't remember. What is the best one to use, and why?

[Germ]

use a journaling file system. I use ext3fs and a lot of people like reiserfs. They can save you a lot of grief if you have an unclean shutdown from power loss, etc.

[SpookyEddy]

I would suggest that you look at ext3. The reliabilty and convenience of a journaling file system combined with ext2 backwards compatibility can only be good. Newer releases of ext3 also allow you to only journal meta-data to bring performance in line with reiserfs v3. If you are looking at a non critical file system then I would give XFS or reiserfs v4 a try.

Regards

ed

[nukes]

I like reiser. I figured eddy would slam it though. As he says that, he must have a good reason for it, but I've found it to be much better than ext3.
I use XFS as my root partition, and it was probably the worst decision I made with regard to this system, however I don't want to format and build everything again. I ended up making seperate partitions for /opt, /var and /usr on reiser and it considerably improved performance.
Ext3 or ReiserFS are probably the best choices. I personally have found Reiser to be faster and haven't had any trouble with it. Ext3 supposedly has had improvments made to its system to improve performance, but I haven't really looked at that so can't comment on it. IMO you won't go worng with either of these two filing systems.

[SpookyEddy]

Where did I slam reiser?

ext3 with only meta-data journaling is reported to outperform reiserfs v3 in many cases. A thread on the lkml reports that reiserfs v4 is faster than ext3 on file creation and reads but slower on deletes, however I wouldn't use it on anything important yet.

[lynchmob]

Reiserfs v4

[SpookyEddy]

Reiserfs v4 is certainly a good performer by all accounts (although it does use a relatively large amount of CPU time for some tasks). However I would suggest that anyone seriously considering it for deployment as a root FS give the issue some thought in advance as it has had far less (zero?) production use than most of the other names being suggested.

Combined with the fact that reiserfs v4 is unlikely to appear as an installation option on any of the current releases of the main distributions makes the point rather mute for most people.

Regards

eddy

[Scott Tiger]

If I were to build a box that was to be put into production I would use Ext3 but that's it - it's just too slow for me to use as a desktop. The main reason RedHat feels "clunky" out of the box (accepting all defaults) is because of Ext3. While reiserfs isn't a choice for production boxes it's a real good choice for desktops IMHO. I won't consider using Ext3 over reiserfs for a desktop for one second. I just don't like giving up the speed..

EDIT: Keep in mind I'm not arguing with the above posters here. These guys all know a lot more about Linux than I do. I'm just stating my preference on the matter. Unfortunately I can't find a link I thought I had comparing the Ext3 and Reiserfs and the options you could give each of them. I'm always give the -noatime and -notail options in /etc/fstab for quicker performance.

[SpookyEddy]

Arrghhh this is not the case anymore, ext3 now out performs reiserfs v3 in many cases, especially if you set it to only journal meta-data. If ext3 is that slow for you then something is broken. Sure reiserfs v3 is an option (and possibly a good one) but enough with the "ext3 is unusably slow" fud.

/me goes and sulks in a corner

[Scott Tiger]

I knew my wording was too strong once I hit the submit button.. GRRRR (too busy trying to find that stupid link I refered to in the edit) - hence the edit (and it sounds like Eddy's got newer info than me. I haven't seriously played with Linux for about 3 months now.

/me walks over to the corner, sits down, and offers Eddy a pint.