LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

View Poll Results: What's the best Linux filesystem?
ext 0 0%
ext2 3 1.65%
ext3 84 46.15%
ReiserFS 58 31.87%
XFS 28 15.38%
NILFS 0 0%
NSS 0 0%
other 9 4.95%
Voters: 182. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-10-2006, 05:54 PM   #1
pdeman2
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Maine, USA
Distribution: OpenSUSE, Gentoo, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, others
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 30
What is the best Linux filesystem?


I'm curious what everyone's favorite filesystem is for a desktop. I usually use ext3, but I've heard ReiserFS and XFS are really good. What do you think?
 
Old 05-10-2006, 05:58 PM   #2
Penguin of Wonder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: West Virginia
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 1,249

Rep: Reputation: 45
Both are faster than ext3. I use XFS, but ReiserFS is really good too. Both are very fast.
 
Old 05-10-2006, 06:34 PM   #3
Vagrant
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2001
Posts: 75

Rep: Reputation: 15
I'm partial to XFS but I voited Resier.
 
Old 05-10-2006, 06:47 PM   #4
Penguin of Wonder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: West Virginia
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 1,249

Rep: Reputation: 45
I haven't tried JFS or Reiser4. But I've read in some magizines that Reiser4 is blazing fast, with the draw back of using alot of resources. When it becomes stable and is supported natively by the kernel, I'm going to switch to it.
 
Old 05-10-2006, 07:46 PM   #5
pdeman2
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Maine, USA
Distribution: OpenSUSE, Gentoo, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, others
Posts: 413

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
What are the disadvantages to XFS?
 
Old 05-10-2006, 07:53 PM   #6
Penguin of Wonder
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: West Virginia
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 1,249

Rep: Reputation: 45
Well, I don't know if it has any disadvantages, but its not always the "best" in every situation. XFS was built to handle a large amount of large files. It works very well with pictures, mp3s, etc. For example, if you open your music folder in Windows and every folder has a icon in thumbnail mode, it will take your computer forever to load all of those pictures, then after you load them it will lag as you scroll through. Using XFS will make that same computer under Linux act like a Mac would with a crap load of pics. Quick load with smooth scrolling. I have heard that sometimes XFS can have trouble with small files, like word documents, though I've never experienced it personally. XFS also dosen't appreciate power interuptions. If you plan on the power going out alot don't use it.
 
Old 05-10-2006, 07:54 PM   #7
cs-cam
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Australia
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 3,544
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 56
They all are targetted for different things, so as with distrobutions, there is no "best" and anyone saying otherwise is simply being misleading.

ext3 and ReiserFS are both desktop filesystems so you could probably fairly compare them. Out of the box, ReiserFS is faster I believe but ext3 is extremely configurable using tune2fs and can be made as quick as Reiser without too much difficulty at all. I've also seen a large number of threads around here of Reiser3 crapping itself, never seen a problem with an ext3 filesystem that wasn't the fault of the user so that's what I use.

XFS and JFS are designed as server filesystems, XFS is quick fast but it caches in memory very aggressively so if you want to use it to it's potential, make sure your machine has a ton of RAM you can chuck at it adn as Penguin said, a hard shutdown will lose some data. I don't know the first thing about JFS so best not to comment.

Check Wikipedia and Google, Wikipedia has some great filesystem comparisons that will tell you the market the different systems are aimed at and you can find comparisons all over Google that vary wildly in their findings, as most do.

Last edited by cs-cam; 05-10-2006 at 07:55 PM.
 
Old 05-10-2006, 09:50 PM   #8
haertig
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Slackware, SysrescueCD
Posts: 1,995

Rep: Reputation: 292Reputation: 292Reputation: 292
I voted ext3 for its track record. That's what I use for my "normal" filesystems. No real experience with ReiserFS yet (just playing around, mostly). But I use XFS for my MythTV recordings. XFS is good for filesystems with a smaller quantity of very large files (my MythTV recordings filesystem runs around 75 qty 2.5Gb files and maybe another 75 small sized files).

Never had any issues with any filesystem I've used. Day to day use, they all seem pretty much the same. Speed may be different, but I don't measure that personally. Only differences I run into are when I resize a filesystem (I use LVM2). Different filesystem types require different resizing specifics (ext3 must be unmounted first, XFS must remain mounted, etc.)
 
Old 05-15-2006, 06:18 AM   #9
Amr_not_Amr
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: Egypt
Distribution: OpenSuSE, CentOS
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: 15
I've worked much on ext3, ext2, reiserfs, xfs..
ext3 is very stable but isn't very good with huge amount of small files.. and is slower than reiserfs
reiserfs is moderatly stable, moderatly fast, and can handle large amount of small files .. but much slower than xfs
xfs is really fast, inrecidibly fast really .. but many ppl say it can lose much data on power loss .. I didn't experience that before..
ext2 is very great to be used for the boot loader .. as it's simpler than all the other filesystem -ext3,reiserfs, xfs- it allows grub to start noticiply very fast if compared to other filesystems mount under /boot ... it makes the time for loading stage 2 of grub very few ...
that's what I've experienced
 
Old 05-15-2006, 06:31 AM   #10
wraithe
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: australia
Distribution: Linux... :-)
Posts: 216
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 30
oh well, i migrated to ext2 a few years back and migrated to ext3 with a new pc...
so comparing xfs and reiser, well not able to, but did learn the hard way that the older drives,
pre 20 gb dont like ext3...ext3 has been a bit more reliable compared to ext2 and has better recovery...
anyway thats my two bobs worth...
 
Old 05-15-2006, 07:18 AM   #11
animehair
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: NJ
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 104

Rep: Reputation: 15
ive been using reiserfs for a long time now, and have never experienced data loss through several power outages and "illegal" shutdowns. I also tend to use ext2 for my boot partition. I like cs-cam's post, and tend to agree that its difficult to compare filesystems when each are created for unique purposes.
 
Old 05-15-2006, 07:26 AM   #12
Emerson
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Saint Amant, Acadiana
Distribution: Gentoo ~
Posts: 3,177

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
 
Old 05-15-2006, 03:05 PM   #13
zsd
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 67

Rep: Reputation: 23
I've run ext3 and reiserfs concurrently on a number of different computers. I've had reiserfs crap out on three different computers, and I've never had a problem with ext3.

Maybe if and when reiserfs is as solid as ext3 I'd look at it again, but if, in fact, it is any faster in actual usage situations, it certainly isn't fast enough to make me risk losing more files.

Cheers.
 
Old 05-15-2006, 07:14 PM   #14
cybersekkin
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Japan
Distribution: suse, debian, libranet, slack
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
XFS defincies

Only 2 I know of include:

1-under LVM cannot shrink an XFS volume

2-I had some experience with a Linux Samba TB file server and XFS indexing and start up took ages. (It literally forgot everything and every couple of reboot "required" a full fsck which took several hours to complete. Now the system in question was specially built and as several request never got us the source code from the manufacturer (Samba and XFS--yeash we know they violate the GPL) so we are unable to confirm if this point is a generic XFS trait or a stupid rewrite on the part of our supplier.
 
Old 05-16-2006, 01:36 AM   #15
khaleel5000
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Pakistan
Distribution: Debian,Pclinuxos
Posts: 327

Rep: Reputation: 31
Xfs

I havent tried Reiser4 ,but expect it to outclass XFS in performance , I didnot have good experience with Reiser (simple reiser,
........... I vote for XFS
 
  


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
DISCUSSION: Virtual Filesystem: Building a Linux Filesystem from an Ordinary File mchirico LinuxAnswers Discussion 0 10-28-2004 10:35 PM
Encrypted Root Filesystem HOWTO and /dev filesystem tmillard Linux From Scratch 0 10-18-2004 03:58 PM
linux filesystem? khucinx Linux - Security 1 05-14-2004 05:02 AM
Linux Filesystem HadesThunder Linux - General 16 04-19-2004 01:08 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 PM.

Main Menu
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
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration