LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   File systems: which do you use, and why? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/file-systems-which-do-you-use-and-why-4175454189/)

JWJones 03-15-2013 10:22 AM

File systems: which do you use, and why?
 
Ext4, xfs, btrfs, Reiser, etc.

Which do you use, and why? I'm particularly interested in hearing from slackers, but anyone is welcome to join in.

mina86 03-15-2013 10:26 AM

ext4, because it rox. ;) But seriously: btrfs is unstable, raiser is unstable, anything else is either unstable or just plain weird.

tronayne 03-15-2013 10:38 AM

Here's something to mull over: Slackware defaults to ext4, Pat and crew do that, why?

Woodsman 03-15-2013 11:19 AM

Using ext4 for everything except my videos partition on my HTPC where I use xfs. The latter is much better at handling large files.

jefro 03-15-2013 11:30 AM

I still use ext2 on some things. Tended to use ext4 most often but now have begun using btrfs. I use zfs in bds always, or almost always.

The situation tends to cause the choice. As Woodsman points out, your use would help decide the filesystem. Again pointed out is that the distro's designers use a default. I'd assume that would create a better bug database to say default is more well tested.

afreitascs 03-15-2013 11:34 AM

I use ext4. I do not need to use another

Didier Spaier 03-15-2013 11:50 AM

Again?
 
I imagine answers will be close to the ones I received here even if the scope was only file-systems for root on Slackware.

rokytnji 03-15-2013 11:52 AM

Code:

# blkid
/dev/sda1: LABEL="PQSERVICE" UUID="84C0247FC0247996" TYPE="ntfs"
/dev/sda2: LABEL="SYSTEM RESERVED" UUID="9C2425202424FF40" TYPE="ntfs"
/dev/sda3: LABEL="Acer" UUID="6AC2CA02C2C9D28D" TYPE="ntfs"
/dev/sda5: UUID="26a54718-3581-4c8b-958a-a03d4ce2b96f" TYPE="swap"
/dev/sda6: LABEL="/" UUID="36c9c5bd-8611-475c-91ed-b13b8ecfe729" TYPE="ext4"
/dev/sda7: LABEL="/home" UUID="55421c6b-4f54-41a2-979e-82ca2b7f2b1f" UUID_SUB="4a16b4e6-1f25-4024-9ebc-a6ff6b28c584" TYPE="btrfs"

I use ext2 file system on ssd because of writes. Plus my eeepc ssd's are old vs the newer ssd drives. Waiting on http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTI1OTU to replace using ext2 on my flash drives and ssd.

I only use btrfs on /home for now.

flank'er 03-15-2013 12:10 PM

Reiserfs. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

H_TeXMeX_H 03-15-2013 12:14 PM

I use JFS, because it's fast, has low CPU usage, and is stable from my experience with it for about 6 years i.e. I have never lost any data even after hard system crashes.

In case you are using SSD, JFS has excellent performance (one of the best if not the best) on SSDs and now supports TRIM:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...38_large&num=1

JWJones 03-15-2013 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier (Post 4912318)
I imagine answers will be close to the ones I received here even if the scope was only file-systems for root on Slackware.

I had done a search prior to posting, but it didn't turn up this poll. Interesting, though, and helpful.

T3slider 03-15-2013 03:59 PM

I only have anecdotal experience. I use XFS on my server and haven't had any problems. Even after a partial hard drive failure I was able to recover my data. My server has only suffered a power out once or twice (it is on a UPS so usually there's no problem) but I didn't experience any data loss on the few occasions it did go down. For my desktop, I used to use reiserfs and had no problems. I switched to ext4 when I reformatted just because ext4 is more flexible (ie it has more tools for online resizing/recovery). The only data corruption I have experienced was with an ext4 partition after a power out. (My desktop is now on a UPS too...) I cannot guarantee that another filesystem would have done any better but certainly I am not 100% confident in ext4's ability to recover after a hard reboot (though I do have enough faith to continue to use it). I have heard that reiserfs is not doing so well these days (due to neglect) but not having used it for some time that may be misinformation. I continue to stick to XFS on servers and ext4 on desktops.

Ahau 03-15-2013 04:16 PM

I run almost exclusively from flash media (usb flash and sdcards, no SSD's). I did a bit of testing a while back and found ext4 to have the best mix of speed, features and reliability/recoverability. At the time, I don't think btrfs had an fsck utility, but it was faster than ext4.

Nilfs2 and f2fs will be interesting to keep an eye on. I had a lot of fun playing with nilfs2, but until it's more stable and has dependable repair tools, it will remain a toy for me.

whizje 03-15-2013 04:38 PM

I use ext4 I have experimented with xfs and if you proper configure it. It can be faster as ext4, but ext4 works excellent out of the box much more self configuring.

qweasd 03-15-2013 06:05 PM

I used reiserfs in the past (for sentimental reasons, having met Hans Reiser briefly in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy, Russia), but now it's exclusively ext4, which seems to offer a good balance of performance and reliability.

Just recently the root partition on my server started to misbehave: it would remount read-only, and certain things (like print server) would stop working. I kept that thing going for a month by just fscking it a few times. And then the drive turned off forever. So ext4 got fixed on a failing drive some 4 times, and the server kept humming until the problem diagnosed itself.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 PM.