best LINUX File System ?


Recommended Posts

OK. First of all: There is no single best filesystem. If there was

one particular filesystem that was better than all of the others, do

you think anybody would continue to use those others? No they wouldn't

- everybody would be using this super-filesystem.

In the real world, every filesystem has its strengths and weaknesses.

For an average everyday desktop, I'd choose either ext3 or reiserFS -

ext3 can be read from windows fairly easily, and reiser is perhaps

marginally faster. Both are very stable, and both are journaled

filesystems, so no long filesystem checks during boot.

XFS, JFS, reiser4, et al are good if you know you have a specific need for them,

but as its just going to be a normal desktop box, I wouldn't worry

about them.

  Knight said:
For desktop Linux I wouldn't reccomend ReiserFS, mainly because it doesn't fully support extended atributes, so things like Beagle and a few other search tools don't like it. I use it, however, it's a good FS aside from that.

586370825[/snapback]

Umm.....

Are you sure I don't know much about file systems, but this is on the 2.6.11.* kernel mabye even lower

  Kernel2.6.13rc5 said:
ReiserFS extended attributes (REISERFS_FS_XATTR)

Extended attributes are name:value pairs associated with inodes by

the kernel or by users (see the attr(5) manual page, or visit

<http://acl.bestbits.at/> for details).

If unsure, say N.

  ranasrule said:
iam leanin towards ext3....can i convert later 2 somethin else ?

586371303[/snapback]

Non-destructively? No. You'll need to migrate your data to a reserve-storage solution before re-mk.fs'ing

Having files that are mostly < 600mb-1gb in size does not justify choosing xfs as your fs. You can do without the additional disk-thrashing during simultaneous writes as well. Notwithstanding, it's a fine fs for media-creation. I personally use it on several boxen with raided scsi, and I love it.

For all-round performance on your desktop machine, though, stick with ext3.

If you choose to use ext3, my suggestion would be to do the following upon fs-creation:

[after mkfs.ext3..]

tune2fs -O has_journal,dir_index -o journal_data,acl /dev/hdXY

(this will ensure full-journaling, access control lists, and b-tree hashes for faster listings of large directories.)

Keep in mind that while some fs-types outperform others in certain benchmarks, efficient disk-operation occasionally requires a combination of fs-types. It's up to you to figure out how you'll be using your computer, and take the necessary steps to configure it accordingly.

Edited by sentio
  sentio said:
Non-destructively? No. You'll need to migrate your data to a reserve-storage solution before re-mk.fs'ing

Having files that are mostly < 600mb-1gb in size does not justify choosing xfs as your fs. You can do without the additional disk-thrashing during simultaneous writes as well. Notwithstanding, it's a fine fs for media-creation. I personally use it on several boxen with raided scsi, and I love it.

For all-round performance on your desktop machine, though, stick with ext3.

If you choose to use ext3, my suggestion would be to do the following upon fs-creation:

[after mkfs.ext3..]

tune2fs -O has_journal,dir_index -o journal_data,acl /dev/hdXY

(this will ensure full-journaling, access control lists, and b-tree hashes for faster listings of large directories.)

Keep in mind that while some fs-types outperform others in certain benchmarks, efficient disk-operation occasionally requires a combination of fs-types. It's up to you to figure out how you'll be using your computer, and take the necessary steps to configure it accordingly.

586371551[/snapback]

thanks for the advice :)

I' building a new Gentoo system and I have a simillar question, I can't decide between Ext3 and ReiserFS, it says ReiserFS is good at dealing with small files (4k or smaller) does that mean it will be slower (than Ext3) when dealing with bigger files?

I dunno, I may just give it a shot...

  msg43 said:
Umm.....

Are you sure I don't know much about file systems, but this is on the 2.6.11.* kernel mabye even lower

  Kernel2.6.13rc5 said:
ReiserFS extended attributes (REISERFS_FS_XATTR)

Extended attributes are name:value pairs associated with inodes by

the kernel or by users (see the attr(5) manual page, or visit

<http://acl.bestbits.at/> for details).

If unsure, say N.

586370836[/snapback]

I'm not sure what you mean, "Are you sure I don't know much about file systems", my comment wasn't a slight on you.

Linux has had support for Reiser3 xattr for a while now, but not 4. What you quoted has nothing to do with Reiser4. If no xattr is found, then Beagle jumps to SQLite, which is slow in comparison. This is why I don't always suggest Reiser4 for desktop use.

  Knight said:
I'm not sure what you mean, "Are you sure I don't know much about file systems", my comment wasn't a slight on you.

Linux has had support for Reiser3 xattr for a while now, but not 4. What you quoted has nothing to do with Reiser4. If no xattr is found, then Beagle jumps to SQLite, which is slow in comparison. This is why I don't always suggest Reiser4 for desktop use.

Oh ok I thought you were talking about reiserfs my mistake :blush:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Wrong again. Electric vehicles are more reliable than gasoline vehicles because they have fewer points of failure. On average, they last 50% longer. Its your right to be incorrect and my right to correct you.
    • Hello, I am using a Hitron CODA56 cable modem with Comcast Xfinity's 1200 Mbps service.  No issues noted.  I had looked at the Motorola and Netgear options for a cable modem, but neither was available for purchase at the time I upgraded my cable connection. There are multiple models in the Netgear Nighthawk X10 line-up.  I am guessing you have either the the Netgear Nighthawk X10 AD7000 model (R8900) or the Netgear Nighthawk X10 AD7200 model (R9000) model, is that correct?  Both of these only have one gigabit WAN (internet) ports for connection to the modem, all of the remaining ports for the LAN side of things are gigabit Ethernet ports.  The 10GbE port on the devices is meant for connection to local NAS storage.  I suppose you could connect the desktop computer directly to it, although it would still be limited by the gigabit connection between the cable modem and the Netgear residential gateway broadband router. I would suggest looking for a residential gateway broadband router from a company like Asus, Netgear, TP-Link or maybe even Ubiquiti, depending upon budget, that has 2.5Gbps (or faster) WAN and LAN ports.  That would allow you to make full use of the 1.2Gbps connection from your ISP as well as have some room for future growth, speed-wise. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky      
    • Firefox 140.0.1 by Razvan Serea Firefox is a fast, full-featured Web browser. It offers great security, privacy, and protection against viruses, spyware, malware, and it can also easily block pop-up windows. The key features that have made Firefox so popular are the simple and effective UI, browser speed and strong security capabilities. Firefox has complete features for browsing the Internet. It is very reliable and flexible due to its implemented security features, along with customization options. Firefox includes pop-up blocking, tab-browsing, integrated Google search, simplified privacy controls, a streamlined browser window that shows you more of the page than any other browser and a number of additional features that work with you to help you get the most out of your time online. Firefox 140.0.1 fixes: Fixed text contrast issues in the sidebar with some dark themes. (Bug 1971487) Fixed a startup crash experienced by some users caused by DLL injection. (Bug 1973947) Download: Firefox 64-bit | Firefox 32-bit | ARM64 | ~60.0 MB (Freeware) Download: Firefox 140.0.1 for Linux | 64-bit | ~90.0 MB Download: Firefox for MacOS | 127.0 MB View: Firefox Home Page | Release Notes Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Hello, RAID-1 is also known as disk mirroring.  That means that all writes are going to be performed identically to all of the drives in the array.  It may also apply to reads as well, but those tend to show less of a performance improvement. If a file gets accidentally overwritten, deleted, or otherwise accidentally modified in a RAID-1 array, that change gets written to all of the drives in the array.   If your goal is to have some level or redundancy or protection fir  your information, having two separate drives that are not RAIDed together in a mirror configuration may be the better solution, as an accidental disk or file operation on one drive does not automatically occur on the second drive.   Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Marites earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      runge100 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      runge100 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      jfam earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      TheRingmaster earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      575
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      185
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      178
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      136
    5. 5
      Xenon
      120
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!