LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2007, 06:23 PM   #16
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,163

Rep: Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527

I prefer the JFS over other file systems, just a personal preference I guess. I've noticed that my CPU is more efficient using JFS.
 
Old 08-31-2007, 08:08 AM   #17
Slackovado
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Distribution: Slackware 14 32bit, Debian, Arch
Posts: 213

Rep: Reputation: 27
You'll get many different and contradicting opinions.
But why not try a few file systems yourself and see which one "feels" right for your setup?
Generally you can't convert from one fs to another, you have to backup your files to a different location and reformat to the the new fs.
It's not hard, just use the Slackware install disk to boot and do it from there.
I had used Reiser for many years with no bad experiences. But didn't have many power outages.
I've had mixed results with ext3 and have to admit I don't like ext3. It's slow.
But when I switched to XFS, I've been very impressed with it and would never go back to Reiser.
Reiser is way too cpu hungry compared to others and slow mounting.
XFS is waaaay better and so is probably JFS (haven't tried it though). Both are enterprise grade fs used on big servers.
 
Old 08-31-2007, 09:59 AM   #18
geek745
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Distribution: Slackware; Ubuntu; Slax
Posts: 172
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 33
another vote for reiserfs. it is fast, and the recovery after a crash is brilliant. was using jfs for a while under mandrake - then switched to reiserfs - seemed a bit more stable. my preference is reiserfs. if u have large files, supposedly reiserfs can end up slower than ext3 i think but most of us, especially in unix, have mostly small files, so reiserfs pulls ahead. somebody correct me if im wrong, please.
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:12 AM   #19
Karimo
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Valencia
Distribution: slackware64-current
Posts: 63

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhamiltion View Post
GET REAL,... stop pretending to be stupid,....

Galileo languished in prison just because he made a good theory,... something about the world not being flat,....
You can imagine a lot of things about a lot of other things...come on...don't be alarmist.
A man that wrote a filesystem is still a man, with its problems...is not written anywhere that a man who wrote a fs is not able to kill someone anymore!
It's quite absurd to believe that an international gang of cybers-linux-programmers-whatever tried to keep Reiser apart from the Linux community etc etc etc.
Linux and the Open Source Community has this great plus: anyone can learn from anyone...this is, I think, our strength.

Don't care about Legends.

Sorry 4 the OT ;P
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:31 AM   #20
Karimo
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Valencia
Distribution: slackware64-current
Posts: 63

Rep: Reputation: 15
I think that about fs is a matter of taste: no more.
However keep in mind this thing: the ability to mantain your created partitions and their fs.
Infact reiserfs is often much harder to resize or to move than a "classic" ext3 partition, for the simple fact that ext3 is better known to the world [and to programs]
 
Old 08-31-2007, 10:59 AM   #21
dennisk
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Southwestern USA
Distribution: CentOS
Posts: 279

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
while power outages continued
Sounds like someone needs a good UPS.

dennisk
 
Old 08-31-2007, 02:52 PM   #22
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 22,974
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879Reputation: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karimo View Post
I think that about fs is a matter of taste: no more.
However keep in mind this thing: the ability to mantain your created partitions and their fs.
Infact reiserfs is often much harder to resize or to move than a "classic" ext3 partition, for the simple fact that ext3 is better known to the world [and to programs]
But then the "need" to resize a partition only indicates
poor planning to begin with ... ;} I didn't need to resize
any Reiser (or other partitions) in a VERY long time.



Cheers,
Tink
 
Old 08-31-2007, 06:08 PM   #23
Karimo
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Valencia
Distribution: slackware64-current
Posts: 63

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinkster View Post
But then the "need" to resize a partition only indicates
poor planning to begin with ... ;} I didn't need to resize
any Reiser (or other partitions) in a VERY long time.



Cheers,
Tink
However I've seen a lot of people wasting their hds due to a partioning problems, and since we have no way to see the future, I think it's smart to have a system that can be modified whenever you "need" or, maybe, whenever you MUST =).
Regards.
 
Old 08-31-2007, 06:57 PM   #24
witz
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Posts: 46

Rep: Reputation: 15
Personally I like reiserfs, as it was always faster than ext3,
and could w/r data faster.

For all of you people discussing what FS is better... read this discussion with Theodore Ts'o http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Filesystems/reiserfs.html
 
Old 08-31-2007, 07:39 PM   #25
rg3
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Slackware Linux
Posts: 507

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Thanks for the link, witz. It could explain the individual file corruption I was experiencing with power outages. That thread confirms for now my opinion that, for a normal PC, ext3 is probably the best option to keep your data safe, while giving average performance. dir_index certainly helps with lots of small files. It's not as fast as reiserfs according to some tests available on the net, but the performance is at least comparable.

By the way, I read somewhere that XFS aggresively caches writes to disk, so if there's a power outage you may end up with a file system which is several minutes old. Is this true? If yes, can this be tuned?

Last edited by rg3; 08-31-2007 at 07:41 PM.
 
Old 09-01-2007, 09:06 AM   #26
johnhamiltion
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Posts: 92

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karimo View Post
Infact reiserfs is often much harder to resize or to move than a "classic" ext3 partition, for the simple fact that ext3 is better known to the world [and to programs]
reiserfs is NOT harder to resize, just use the command:

resize_reiserfs

But then you have never tried to resize a reiserfs partition, have you?
 
Old 09-01-2007, 10:06 AM   #27
thekid
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: The Golden State
Distribution: Ubuntu 8.04
Posts: 190

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhamiltion View Post
You have to patch your kernel:

If you want to find out more about Reiser4, checkout the articles:

Some Amazing Filesystem Benchmarks. Which Filesystem is Best?
Compiling yourself a new Kernel (with Reiser4 support).
Installing your favorite Linux Distro on Reiser4.
Installing GRUB on a Reiser4 Partition.

at http://linuxhelp.150m.com/
While the site you linked may be...informative... I must discount anything read on it on the basis that there is an obvious bias towards Reiser4 and any evidence provided is suspect. Also, the anti-Jew sentiments coupled with the conspiracy theories are somewhat offensive. If it is your site, perhaps you could delineate between the topics better.

Last edited by thekid; 09-01-2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason: Grammatical errors
 
Old 09-01-2007, 11:44 AM   #28
Karimo
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Valencia
Distribution: slackware64-current
Posts: 63

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnhamiltion View Post
reiserfs is NOT harder to resize, just use the command:

resize_reiserfs

But then you have never tried to resize a reiserfs partition, have you?
Of course you can =D
But, as you can see in the man page, this program only changes the size of the filesystem, and not of the underlying device, this means that you have to shrink or enlarge your partition with fdisk or similar: so is not "simple" as using parted, and keep in mind also that a lot of programs for partitioning (even commercials ones), can't, in most cases, even recognize a reiserfs.
As you can see, the ability to do such a job, is not so spread as for more common filesystems: I think that you can realize that for your own.
However you are right, is not hard...but it is, for sure, harder to manipulate a reiserfs than a ext3 filesystem (just look at commercial programs [I don't like them, of course]).
I'm not against reiserfs =), at all: I think it rapresents the future of fs (altough we have to see also ext4...)

Cheers.

Last edited by Karimo; 09-01-2007 at 11:47 AM.
 
Old 09-02-2007, 05:14 AM   #29
johnhamiltion
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Posts: 92

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karimo View Post
this means that you have to shrink or enlarge your partition with fdisk or similar: so is not "simple" as using parted,...
So whose fault is that exactly.

Parted could easily support Reiser3 and Reiser4 (and NTFS) but choose NOT to.
 
Old 09-02-2007, 06:00 AM   #30
Gethyn
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Distribution: (X)Ubuntu 10.04/10.10, Debian 5, CentOS 5
Posts: 900

Rep: Reputation: 32
Wandering off-topic a bit here?

My advice would be to stick with what you've currently got if it's working alright for you now. Personally I've had trouble with Reiser 3 but not with ext3, but as has already been pointed out experiences may vary. However, for a basic home computer setup you probably won't see a great deal of difference between systems, which as far as I'm concerned means it's not worth the hassle of changing your setup. Every partition you want to change the FS type on will have to be reformatted, which is a pain, particularly for root, /usr, /var, and so on.

If you're wanting to set up a new system, it may be worth looking into different filesystems, but in that case you also ought to take into account what you want to use the system for. Different filesystems tend to have different strengths, for example some are good at handling lots of very small files, others are better for large blocks of data, and so on.

One simple thing that might give you a slight performance boost is adding the option 'noatime' to your fstab, apparently it makes quite a noticeable difference on slower drives, such as notebook drives.
 
  


Reply

Tags
jfs, reiser, reiserfs, reiserfsck


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 Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why do OS use File systems ? naveenrajn Linux - Newbie 6 11-15-2005 12:17 PM
Is arrangement of file systems will differ if we copy a file from FAT 32 to ext 3 ? anindyanuri Linux - Software 2 02-20-2005 11:39 AM
File systems gpit2286 Linux - General 2 02-09-2005 10:02 AM
about file systems anwar_lpk Linux - Hardware 1 11-29-2003 11:23 PM
file systems jdctx Linux - General 6 03-11-2002 11:05 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 AM.

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