SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
ext2 on the /boot partition (no use for a journaled filesystem there), ext4 on all others.
Thanks, kikinovak. That's a clever way to configure your system.
I did googled for info before posting this question. It's not merely about knowing the pros and cons of each file systems... sometimes, I get more by asking folks with a wealth of experience
I usually use ext4 for all my partition (except those shared with Windows, of course), but out of curiosity and because of better performance in benchmarks on SSDs I tried JFS for my laptop. So far I have seen no downsides with that decision, but due to hardware limitation I can't see performance enhancements either.
I usually use ext4 for all my partition (except those shared with Windows, of course), but out of curiosity and because of better performance in benchmarks on SSDs I tried JFS for my laptop. So far I have seen no downsides with that decision, but due to hardware limitation I can't see performance enhancements either.
Would ext2 be a better option for SSDs since it does less rw due to the lack of journalling support?
Current SSD with new style controllers do not have issues with read/write like older designs. Plus the use of MLC does provide long term usage on new SSD at a lower cost to users.
ext2 on the /boot partition (no use for a journaled filesystem there), ext4 on all others.
There's another reason why I use ext2 on the /boot partition. I've been a GRUB user for a few years (legacy GRUB, not GRUB2), and this bootloader didn't play well with ext4 for some time. I don't use it anymore, since LILO does very well what it's supposed to do, but I've kept the habit. Plus, having a small /boot partition (30 to 100 MB) forces me to clean up an eventual mess of kernels, but that's a different story.
Would ext2 be a better option for SSDs since it does less rw due to the lack of journalling support?
In fact, it would be counter-productive, since ext2 does not have support for the TRIM command, which helps the SSD to keep being fast and with wear-levelling.
I have no problem at all with wearout on my machines, my oldest SSD, a 40GB Intel device I used for about 3 years now, has about 3TB (currently not in use, I can't tell the exact values) written to it and reports lifetime indicator of 97%, so there are still some years to go with that device.
This is what the SSD in my main machine reports
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.