LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards
User Name
Password
2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards This forum is for the 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2015. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 10th.


Notices


View Poll Results: Linux Filesystem of the Year
Btrfs 36 9.00%
ext3 18 4.50%
ext4 289 72.25%
F2FS 2 0.50%
JFS 5 1.25%
OverlayFS 1 0.25%
Reiser4 3 0.75%
XFS 26 6.50%
ZFS 20 5.00%
Voters: 400. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2016, 07:22 AM   #31
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 4,654

Rep: Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255

Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelc View Post
I use ext4 because it came with the system.
So does xfs, jfs, and others...
 
Old 02-01-2016, 12:50 PM   #32
Lsatenstein
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal Canada
Distribution: Fedora 25 (Chapeau Remix/Korora Project Remix)
Posts: 288
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 58
btrfs is great for servers, but not really very beneficial for the home workspace desktop.
I use Fedora and SUSE.

I have had excellent results with ext4, btrfs, xfs on different distributions on different disks.

Not one filesystem of them caused me problems during use, but surprisingly I had a recovery problem when btrfs became corrupted. As a result, I only use btrfs with SUSE

Last edited by Lsatenstein; 02-02-2016 at 01:02 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-01-2016, 03:07 PM   #33
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 4,654

Rep: Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255
I've had really bad experience with btrfs just a couple of months ago. I don't trust it as there have been too many system hangs and reboots required.

Note: I do think it has a LOT of promise... Just that it isn't ready for any use (other than testing) right now.

Last edited by jpollard; 02-01-2016 at 03:08 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-02-2016, 06:13 AM   #34
JZL240I-U
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: openSuSE 42.1_64+Tumbleweed-KDE, Mint 17.3
Posts: 3,988

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I use ext4 for my /home and btrfs for the system because of its snapshot functionality. I voted btrfs to give the new kid in the neighbourhood a chance but would have voted for both if I could, since I well appreciate ext4's reliability and fast working.

Last edited by JZL240I-U; 02-03-2016 at 02:48 AM.
 
Old 02-02-2016, 01:04 PM   #35
Lsatenstein
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal Canada
Distribution: Fedora 25 (Chapeau Remix/Korora Project Remix)
Posts: 288
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 58
JZ,

Eighteen months ago, I tried btrfs. It worked well for three months, and suddenly, a problem. I tried to recover, and the btrfs utilities reported that it could not do it correctly. I dropped btrfs for the time being.

Around 4 January of this year I installed SUSE Tumbleweed and by default it uses btrfs for / and most subdirectories (subvolumes) within /. /Home was setup as an xfs file system.
Also for the 18 months, I have noted numerous btrfs updates, both in Fedora and in SUSE. I will try btrfs again with Fedora 24, as it is time to give it a second trial. Again, I will first redeploy using SUSE.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-02-2016, 02:24 PM   #36
bsdunixdb
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Distribution: Slackware-x86_64+multilib (stable)
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 15
ext4. Slackware default nuff said.
 
Old 02-03-2016, 02:54 AM   #37
JZL240I-U
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: openSuSE 42.1_64+Tumbleweed-KDE, Mint 17.3
Posts: 3,988

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
@Lsatenstein

Same with me. I have a multi-boot setup, so I had a dedicated /boot up until and including openSUSE 13.2. That means that the snapshot capability is crippled, since /boot is a subvolume with btrfs, so until then I stayed with ext4 for the system partition as well. But for Leap 42.1 and tumbleweed I accepted btrfs for the system but still use ext4 for /home. Since the latter two are quite buggy I'll revert to 13.2, so one might argue that I am in an oscillating state .
 
Old 02-03-2016, 01:38 PM   #38
Pyrotech72
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2016
Location: Tennessee
Distribution: several, but trying to get away from systemd while keeping KDE and KVM
Posts: 38

Rep: Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
Yes, I was thinking of using the VM to serve Samba shares to access my Ext4 drives. I'm guessing that, if configured right (network drives in Windows, etc.), it could be made pretty transparent to the user. Is there a better way to access the filesystems, do you think?
I export NFS and SaMBa both directly from the host. Other machines access them very well. (Running KVM/qemu/libvirtd on openSUSE 13.1) It makes no difference whether they are baremetal or virtualized. Obviously, Windows machines (XP, 7, 8) use the SMB shares, and Linux machines import the NFS shares. Oddly, Androids seem to use SMB.
 
Old 02-05-2016, 02:58 AM   #39
trosdejos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2012
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I moved my 20 TB RAID to XFS because ext4 limitations. Works well for me.
 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:39 PM   #40
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 6,324

Rep: Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730
Quote:
Originally Posted by trosdejos View Post
I moved my 20 TB RAID to XFS because ext4 limitations. Works well for me.
Interesting, which limitations?
 
Old 02-05-2016, 03:24 PM   #41
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 4,654

Rep: Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Interesting, which limitations?
The only one I'm aware of is that xfs can automatically extend the inode list, but that adds a bit of time to the allocation as it scatters the free inodes in multiple lists. The inode numbers also get very large as they also indicate which segement they are in (not a problem though, but can be surprising if you don't know about it first).
 
Old 02-05-2016, 04:25 PM   #42
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 6,324

Rep: Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpollard View Post
The only one I'm aware of is that xfs can automatically extend the inode list, but that adds a bit of time to the allocation as it scatters the free inodes in multiple lists. The inode numbers also get very large as they also indicate which segement they are in (not a problem though, but can be surprising if you don't know about it first).
Ah, so, if I have this right "in layman's terms" the ability to support many more files (well, file fragments?), if required, by changing the relevant parameters?
 
Old 02-05-2016, 04:50 PM   #43
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 4,654

Rep: Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255Reputation: 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Ah, so, if I have this right "in layman's terms" the ability to support many more files (well, file fragments?), if required, by changing the relevant parameters?
No parameters are changed. XFS automatically extends the inode list; as usage increases, new allocation groups get created. and those come with inodes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS

Some people will swear by XFS. It is a good solid filesystem.

I had some problems with XFS in a previous implementation (IRIX with XFS). Every time the system would crash it would lose free blocks until the filesystem was used up. I figured out that what was lost were incomplete files - with preallocated blocks, not yet written. When the system crashed, the blocks written were saved... but the unwritten blocks were not. A quick xfsrestore would find thes unused blocks (allocated, but not in any file), and recover the free space.

Oh - the reason for the crashes... (silly thing), every time the janitors would do a floor scrubbing they would unintentionally plug into the UPS. When the scrubber got turned on the sudden power drain caused the power supply on the IRIX system to shut down. We got the power plugs painted after that to clearly identify which one NOT to use for the scrubber.

Last edited by jpollard; 02-05-2016 at 04:57 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-06-2016, 03:47 AM   #44
trosdejos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2012
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Interesting, which limitations?
One of my servers is a Debian 8.3 32-bit server, RAID0 (12TB), ext4 filesystem.It worked well, but I needed to grow it to 20TB. I could not grow it more than 16 TB bacause ext4 has the limit of 16TB with 32-bit systems. I moved to Debian 8.3 64-bit and XFS and could grow my RAID0 to 20 TB.
I'm not an expert but moving to 64-bit and XFS solved muy issue.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-06-2016, 04:10 AM   #45
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 6,324

Rep: Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730Reputation: 1730
Quote:
Originally Posted by trosdejos View Post
One of my servers is a Debian 8.3 32-bit server, RAID0 (12TB), ext4 filesystem.It worked well, but I needed to grow it to 20TB. I could not grow it more than 16 TB bacause ext4 has the limit of 16TB with 32-bit systems. I moved to Debian 8.3 64-bit and XFS and could grow my RAID0 to 20 TB.
I'm not an expert but moving to 64-bit and XFS solved muy issue.
Thanks, I'd not realised that the ext tools were lagging behind in that regard.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: How Last Year's Linux Events Played Out This Year LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-15-2012 07:12 PM
LXer: Year X is NOT the Year of the Linux Desktop LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-09-2009 04:30 PM
Best Linux Distro for a 5 year old desktop and a 3 year old laptop silencer07 Linux - General 15 07-25-2008 04:44 PM
LXer: New Year 2007 - The year of GNU/Linux LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-01-2007 04:21 AM
DISCUSSION: Virtual Filesystem: Building a Linux Filesystem from an Ordinary File mchirico LinuxAnswers Discussion 0 10-28-2004 11:35 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration