SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware 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.
my suggestion is reiserFS, it has been always kind to me and I feel it faster over ext3. I don't know for sure over XFS nor JFS. Though I manage a couple of Sun Solaris servers which have UFS, it's fast and stable as hell too, but I'm not sure if it can be used on Linux
I use reiserfs too. I've run into problems with ext2 and ext3, (Mostly I'm my worst enemy), and have found that reiserfs has the speed and stability that I'm looking for. It's journaling and security extensions are just what I need. Of course, for every GNU/Linux user out there, there will be an opinion. Do some research on the pros/cons of each.
then again, i'm just basing myself on the great experience i've had with reiserfs, it's not like i think the other ones suck or anything... in fact, i've never used JFS, for example, as i've never really had any need for it since reiserfs has always worked so smoothly for me... the only time i ever use something other than reiserfs is when i'm building a ramdisk or something like that with ext2...
Reiserfs & Reiser4 tend to be more effective on small files, but are more CPU resources hungry at the same time.
XFS tends to be effective with operations on large files and has lower CPU usage.
Ext3 seems to be very polished(fast,reliable) in recent kernels.
I don't know JFS but benchmarks say it has lowest CPU consumption of mentioned filesystems.
It looks like optimal filesystem for storing huge files like video streams is XFS but I'd suggest to test all fs with own benchmarks because on different HW results my vary.
There is no way to shrink an XFS filesystem in-place.
(Older versions of XFS suffered from out-of-order write hazards, which can result in problems such as files being appended to during a crash gaining a tail of garbage on the next mount.)
The second one is the most distressing, and also the only other problem, and if you don't have a bunch of files exceeding 500+MB, XFS might not be the way to go. As far as I know ext3, Reiserfs, or even JFS should serve you just fine, I don't know what version of Reiserfs I have, I am just running the current version available on my Slackware10.0 ,2.4.26 kernel, and have no real issues I can think of with Reiserfs.
Other things I've noticed by living with both Reiserfs and ext3:
ext3 boots faster than reiserfs because it doesn't check the fs during boottime, like reiserfs does. In larger volumes, this can save you from seconds to minutes depending on how large the filesystem is.
ext3 journals both data and metadata, which in turn means that it's more fault-tolerant than reiserfs, but it makes the filesystem slower because it has to write twice as much as reiserfs.
I am thinking of reiserFS but I haven't decided yet..
I read that JFS is kinda unstable on the linux yet and that XFS uses a lot of memory and it's better to be used with SCSI.I have SATA
I see some really interesting replies here