File system's properties

hotrodowner · 07-03-2002, 05:40 PM

Not counting security, which file system (ext3, ext2, NTFS, FAT32, FAT16, Drivespace 3 and others I'm too stupid to know about such as mac's and solaris') is the best at speed, non-recoverable errors (not considering the hard drive's errors), effective use of drive space, non-fragmentation, recoverability from power loss, etc.?

How reliable is memory? If I set up a ram drive, will I have more data loss or less (concerning data decay NOT power loss)?

pickledbeans · 07-03-2002, 07:07 PM

You really cann't compare Win/DOS file systems.
ext2 is the standard fs for Linux for kernel <- 2.2.x

Kern 2.4 .x and beyond support ext3 which allows you to use journeling fs. Which is supposed to allow for faster recovery follow a unscheduled reboot.

The other options is of course RAID, Linux support both hardware and software RAID.

See Linux Documention Project "How to" here:
http://tldp.org

Mik · 07-04-2002, 02:21 AM

Well a journaling filesystem is a good thing in terms of quick recovery and it does enhance speed on large drives. The reason why most people choose ext3 is because it's so compatible with ext2 and it's very easy to upgrade.
But the reiser filesystem is a lot faster. There are many reports and articles written about the comparisons of different filesystems. Just search around with google.

hotrodowner · 07-04-2002, 10:20 AM

All I found was a comparison of ext2 and ext3. I want to know how the windows file systems, especially NTFS, stack up to ext3.