best LINUX File System ?

[ranasrule]

iam about to install KUBUNTU and as a Linux noob i was wondering which file system is the best ?

[rezza Veteran]

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.

[msg43]

I would recomend reiserfs, it what I use, I hear it great for small files (config files and all that), and I also hear it faster then ext3, plus it seems like ext3 is older than reiserfs.

[Knight']

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.

[Morgan]

I too recommend resierfs. It's pretty quick and efficient when I've used it.

[msg43]

  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.

[K3EnU]

forget reiserfs , XFS is really the best , tested both for desktop use and i can say there's a real difference !

[semaja2.net]

I to vote for refiser i used ext3 but suse chooses it by default but i have no solid evidence to say whats better but yeh

[ranasrule]

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

[Hurmoth]

I recommend ReiserFS... it is was I use on all my desktops and we use it on our servers at work.

[ranasrule]

what r the advantages and disadvantages or ReiserFS ? i heard its for servers ?

[ootput]

  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 August 13, 2005 by sentio

[Jon 5]

I used to use ext3 with Kubuntu but I reformatted and am now using ReiserFS also known as Reiser3 I belive. I can't tell a noticable speed difference really and I use my computer a lot so I think I would have noticed if it was a decent speed increase.

[ranasrule]

  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 :)

[msg43]

Reiserfs is newer and isn't so out of date. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

[rezza Veteran]

  msg43 said:

Reiserfs is newer and isn't so out of date. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

586371773[/snapback]

On the flipside, Ext3 has been out longer so it has had more testing and should be more stable.

[bmbeeman]

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...

[Knight']

  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.

[amr_01]

I prefer reiserfs, been using it for about 4 years now.

[chavo]

You won't notice the speed difference between any file systems, it's just not that much of a difference.

Ext3 and ext2 are tried, true and tested. Ext3 is just an extension to ext2 to add support for journalling.

[msg43]

  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:

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Conservative Desktop Use: ext3

Performance Desktop Use: ReiserFS

Aggressive Desktop Use: Reiser4