Published at LXer:

Want to get Unix/Linux techies arguing? Besides classic flame wars such as whether vi or EMACS is the better text editor, another surefire way to start a fight is to talk about which file systems are the best. Google, which knows a thing or two about fast systems has decided, for their purposes anyway, that Ext4 is the best and close to the fastest file system of all.

Read More...

This really bothers me lately LXer

I have that Gecko from NorhTech using a SDCard (emulated to IDE by the Xcore) and I wonder which FS provides me the best trade off?

I installed Slackware 13.0 to the SD card (Class4 Kingston 8GB) and it took "only" 4+ hours tu untxz the "all" without KDE packages.

I used JFS this first time "just to see" and while the writes lagged some, the reads where really impressive for a "Flash backed storage media" IMHO.

I picked JFS for following rationale:

A. It is less CPU demanding (lesser logic) than either ReiserFS EXT3 and XFS (I used all of them), it compares to ext2 for I/O regarding CPU demand, yet offers decent recovery speed.
B. Only journaled FS come in question on a Mobile ststion: no one wants to have "ever lasting fsck" while in filed
C. I doubted "massive logic" FS would payback for CPU cogging for "Flash backed storage media" (FBSM) has "inertialess" or zero weight on track to track transitions while "seeking" opposed to mechanical ("Disk backed storage media").
D. I plan converting my "true install" to Slax like contained in layers with a "changes" layer on top. Does it pay?

Just "fuel" for brain

Stevan C.

Just ditched EXT4, after trying, it failed to store 99% of files from a 100% full, smaller partition:

6.9G source (jfs) to a 7.1G target (ext4)

The jfs has 61M left

I will update as i progress further (Reiser's turn now)

Stevan C.

I played with ext2, ext3, reiserfs, and jfs. Didn't go into XFS due to the issues of write delays. I have stuck with jfs and never looked back. Even on my ancient AMD K6-2, jfs performs beautifully! The only thing that scares me now is jfs stagnating to the point of uselessness. Development has pretty much stalled and I fear for the future of jfs.

It's obvious that Google don't know jack. XFS and JFS will beat ext4 any day, especially when configured properly.

That's not true. Although development is slow, there's a release every year of jfs utils, and the devs are accessible and will take bug reports. You should know that JFS has been in use on IBM mainframes for quite some time, so just as long as they port all the features, there's not that much to do in terms of improvement.

As long as work continues on JFS and the changes are ported over to Linux, I am happy. What worries me is that I heard rumors that IBM might be losing interest in maintaining JFS (under Linux). I also follow the kernel changelog, and I see comments here and there about XFS, but nothing about JFS itself. The util programs is one thing, but I want to know that IBM has not lost interest in maintaining JFS itself as well as making changes where needed (bugfixes, etc).

I am however trying to plan ahead 'just in case'. Ext4 is definitely out. The only alternative would be XFS, and then some experimentation and trial with BTRFS when that becomes stable.

You also need to consider whether the filesystem is on an LVM or RAID partition. The relative read/write performance between filesystems could change dramatically for certain types of files. If you use LVM, consider how easy it is to resize filesystems up or down in size.

The moral I guess is to test them out for yourself before deciding.

While I admit that JFS is "jewel" in tems of regular service, I'm concerned the lack of tuning options left to tweak from userspace:

1. Dirty pages age tweaking (battery mode on laptop)

then lack of:
2. recovery modes in disaster scenarios
3. undeletion tools

Which only really comparing FS provides: ReiserFS.

How come no comments of ReiserFS?
???

Not to mention production system features:
4. resizing (within a volume manager or not)
5. 3rd party reading tools (other OSes)

Well, I mostly care about performance, so I like XFS, JFS.

For me JFS offers both performance and stability. I haven't lost any data (*knocks on wood*), and whenever I have a power outtage and such, JFS is pretty resilient and quick when doing a journal replay. I will one day invest in a UPS so I can sefely shutdown when I do lose power due to a storm or something.

Kind thanks,
I kind of hoped for a deeper reasoning, sleeve rolling discussion etc., But it is somewhat reassuring there are seasoned JFS users.

I still have a feeling i should have tried reiserfs too?
Best regards,
Stevan C.

Well there is no actual reason why you shouldn't try ReiserFS. You could try it as an extra partition just for keeping data. Since I myself use JFS, that doesn't stop me from trying out other FS'. I have played with ext4 when it was considered stable, and I am looking forward to btrfs when it is deemed stable. Who knows, maybe btrfs might offer some similar balances like JFS, performance and stability wise.

Well, I tried all the filesystems before deciding on one. I haven't tried btrfs yet, mostly because it didn't exist when I tried them out, and it's not quite stable yet.

how about JFFS? Anyone?
is it a full fledged UNIX fs or just a fat instead with compression extension?

I only know it's used on EPROMs of embeded devices?
(like routers or phones)