Well, it's a question about likes and dislikes rather than another problem. XFS and JFS are ports of another OS's, But, ext2 and ext3 are "native". I've had experiencied with Reiser, XFS, ext2, and ext3. Ext2 it's quit slow for any kind of machine, furthermore it is for a server... When Linux hangs up and you have to reboot the fsck tool scans over the disk for bad blocks, which is a task that could last from 1 minute to 30 minutes!!.
With ReiserFS I had several problems of speed [at boot, searching disks for something, etc, etc]. So, I change it for XFS. With these filesystem, several basic services at boot don't start [keymaps, numlock, The backspace sends..., etc]. Also I had several problems with the CD-W in order to scan the bus SCSI. After that panic possesed me!! So I chose ext3. It is ext2 with a patch for journalling. So, it has some poor technics of managing a hd, restoring a crashed FS, etc, etc. Conclusion: XFS and ReiserFS are the best by far. but you have to choose very careful the kernel that your FS is going to interact. Moreover, if you need to patch it, do it. Ext2 and Ext3 works in most cases and donīt have any kind of problem or/and incompatibilitie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oliver Thieke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: [expert] Choosing the right filesystem > Hello out there... > > I hope this question won't raise a fs-jihad ;-). > And I hope this mail isn't too long, but I'm > trying to be as specific as possible. > > On installing Mandrake 8.1 the Installer offers > various options for the partition's fs. I'm > again in the business of setting up a usual PC > as a dual-boot machine with NT 4 and Man 8.1. > And now I wonder which FS to choose for my > particular layout... > ext2, ext3, ReiserFS or XFS,... > > NT is for work and m8.1 is for experimenting, > learning and exposing some of our "you can't be > wrong with windoze"-guys to "unknown" > alternatives. The hardware is quite simple: > P-III, DVD-Drive, HP CD-burner, Creative > soundblaster and 3Com-LAN-NIC. > > I already browsed through the mandrake user > and reference manuals, the SUSE sysad-manual, > the LSAG (LDP), googled in some linux newsgroups > and o'reilly's "running linux, 2nd ed". > But none of them came up with some sort of > recommendation or rule of thumb for this case. > > Just a short statement in LSAG: "There is usually > little point in using many different filesystems. > Currently, ext2 is the most popular one, and it > is probably the wisest choice. (...) This needs to > be decided on a case-by-case basis." > Looks a little bit outdated... > > The purpose of the m8.1 will primarily be: > Gaining experience. It will serve as a workstation > and server. "Areas" to be included: Apache, samba, > NFS, mysql, postgresql, networking tools, developing > and the usual KDE, internet & office stuff (no fancy > multi-media stuff, mp3 or the like). And later maybe > oracle 9i personal edition... > > Hence I designed the following layout for my m8.1 > part of the disk: > > /boot 50 MB > /swap 800 MB (approx. 3 * RAM size) > / 250 MB > /var 650 MB > /usr 9800 MB > /home 7000 MB > > On the IBM-DeveloperWorks-Site (in general a very > nice source for tutorials on lx, java, xml,...) I found > a series of articles by Daniel Robbins dealing with > the new array of filesystems for the 2.4 kernel. > > According to the IBM author those FS's show the > different advantages and diadvantages: > > ReiserFS > + better in handling small files (< 4 k) > - eventually performance loss with reading large mail > directories > - poor sparse file performance > - NFs compatibility not so good > > ext3 > + easys transition from ext2 > + backward compatible to ext2 > + supposed to be very reliable > - slightly "slower" than XFS/reiserFS > > XFS > + speedy on large files > + efficient disk accesses > - slower deletes > > Robbins' recommendation: "Those who were looking for > raw performance generally leaned towards ReiserFS, > while those more interested in meticulous data integrity > features preferred ext3. However, with the release of XFS > for Linux, things have suddenly become much more confusing." > > I'm still not sure which fs design to choose. > Should all partitions have the same fs including > /boot and / ? Which one ? > Do you, out there, have any hands-on recommendations for > this purpose ? > Experience with the reliability, recoverability and > compatibility of the various fs' ? > Any known problem areas for the three fs ? > > Thanx in advance from Berlin > > Oliver > > > > BTW - this is a very nice mailing list. Not too much > traffic. Hence you still can follow all threads and > learn a lot :-). > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com >
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
