Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Hi, I finally got my second drive so I can install linux separate from XP. But, now I don't know what format I want to use. I have looked at ext3, FAT32, NTFS, Reiser, etc. I am getting a little bogged down in the technical details, and would like some firm suggestions. Linux, probably Ubuntu initially, is the only thing going on this drive.
16 Meg cache
How much of a difference is there between formats? I am concerned with data integrity more than speed, I figure my system is fast enough.
I've settled on just using Ext3 for everything. It may or may not be as fast as reiser, but I've had to manually fix a reiser so many times it's not even funny. So unless you like being dropped into a command prompt when your filesystem can't be automatically fixed, stick with ext3.
I use ext3. ext2 was the old generic standard and ext3 is the generic standard of the day. It looks like they're developing ext4, but I know nothing about it. reiserfs and the others are good, but it always seemed to me that you needed to make a commitment to them and their peculiarities. (Note: for the intermediate and advanced users, those peculiarities can make all the difference in the world for the particular things you need Linux for. For the beginner, ext3 needs no fiddling.)
I guess I should caveat, tho, that I use Slackware Linux, not Ubuntu. So my other suggestion would be to take the filesystem that is at the top of the list when you install Ubuntu. At this point, you're really looking for the simplest operating system to manage, not the one that's going to give you the best performance for the particular setup you're looking to use Linux for. If Ubuntu prefers JFS, then JFS would be the one that will end up having the least maintenance issues.
Hah! Eight of you have viewed this already, somebody tell me at least what you're using personally. Please, two seconds.
I use ReiserFS for servers, ext3 for desktops and laptops (or anything else prone to getting powered off unexpectedly). The reason I use Reiser for servers is because it is faster on some things than ext3 (Squid cache for example). Both Reiser and ext3 are journaling, but ext3 seems a bit more tolerant to abuse than Reiser. I agree with what the other user said that it depends on what you're using it for. Researching the pros and cons of each will give you a better idea of what you need.
I use reiserfs, but it is too slow when copying large files. So in future I plan to use ext3. Other FS are no-go for me -- I don't know about any tool for jfs or xfs to move/resize partitions. Gparted supports only (I mean fully) reiserfs and ext3 (FS with journaling) so there are only two options for me.
I mainly use XFS and ext3. Never had issues with some of them. I had ReiserFS on some machines from a customer and after a year running, it disintegrated itself so we switched to ext3.
XFS is somewhat faster than ext3 because it's only journalling meta data and not the data itself. Ext3 has the big advantage, that it can be mounted as normal ext2, which gives rise that it can be mounted from Windows machines too (googel IFS drives). This is one main reason for me to use it as exchange file system on big external USB drives. NTFS is problematic to use on some Linux distributions, FAT32 is ok, but has limitations, especially the 30GB limit when formatting under Windows. Ext3/2 works very well from Linux and Windows and does not have these limits, so I use it for this purpose too.
Distribution: openSuSE 42.1_64+Tumbleweed-KDE, Mint 17.3
If you use ext3 (as I do) and care most about data integrity then edit your /etc/fstab and add the option journal=data (or was it data=journal? "man ext3"...). That will add safety since everything will be journaled then.
If you do the partitioning and building of the file system "by hand" you might issue also "mke2fs -O dir_index -J size 400 -j-L root" ("man mke2fs"). dir_index switches on b-tree hashes (better for large directories) and -J size=400 creates a 400 MB journal where a file can be written in one piece. Don't forget to use "tune2fs journal_data" ("man tune2fs") to switch on journaling.
You should be aware that this is an 'everyone, give me your conflicting opinions' post. You also have not said much about the usage that you will be putting the filesystem to, and the answer would probably change if you have terabyte database files from that for desktop use (admittedly, it would be difficult to host terabyte files on a 320G disk, but you know the point).
For data security, you would want to chose a journalling filesystem (so not ext2 -ext3 is 'ext2 plus journalling' so I would still see that as a valid choice).
In contrast to some of the earlier posts, I haven't had any issues with reiser (but then I don't re-size partitions), so I'd probably use that.
Reiser4 is still a bit experimental and bleeding edge (and not widely available without hackery) so that's not advisable if data security is high up your list. Ext4 is probably marginally further along in development than Reiser4, but, I would say, still not advisable. This is a shame as both Reiser4 and ext4 are appreciably faster in some specific test cases than earlier systems.
XFS has had some good press but I've never tried it; I probably wouldn't consider anything other than some variety of reiser or ext unless I had a peculiar (say, professional data centre at one end, or embedded at the other) application.
I wouldn't touch NTFS or FAT32 with the proverbial barge pole for linux system usage. These are MS filesystems (which may or may not be inherently a bad thing, depending on your point of view) and so the linux drivers are more developed as a convenience for dual-booters rather than as main filesystems for your linux installation. IF you've got a dual-boot machine, AND you want to share data between an MS OS and a proper one (sorry), then storing that data, or better still, a copy of that data, on an MS-formatted partition makes some kind of sense. Otherwise, no. And, not to install Linux on to, in almost any circumstances. (If you just want to 'give Linux a try', get a live CD. If you like it, install properly.)