ext3 vs. reiserfs: which is better?

Mugatu · 12-22-2003, 08:37 AM

just curious...

ghight · 12-22-2003, 09:03 AM

They are commonly used for different reasons, so it's not really apples to apples.

Mugatu · 12-22-2003, 09:20 AM

what kinds of different reasons are they used for? the only thing i know about them is they are journalized file systems, but that's it. i'm setting up some workstations for now, although i will be experimenting with setting up apache, mySQL, and snort servers. Right now i'm playing with Mandrake 9.2 and Slackware 9.1, and i'm just curious which FS would be best, or whether i should possibly consider one of the others such as XFS or JFS. i also installed SuSE 8.1 from FTP just for the heck of it on another computer, and it used ReiserFS by default. when i tried to access an ext3 partition, it said that the kernel didn't support ext3. i think it was using 2.4.x.

lokee · 12-22-2003, 09:30 AM

ReiserFS rocks!
It's alot faster than ext3 on most operations... Sure, there's a small lag on mount but, hey, it only happens once(while booting)!
And with the upcoming Reiser4, it'll definitly be the best:

Quote:

# Reiser4 is the fastest filesystem
# Reiser4 is an atomic filesystem, which means that your filesystem operations either entirely occur, or they entirely don't, and they don't corrupt due to half occuring. We do this without significant performance losses, because we invented algorithms to do it without copying the data twice.
# Reiser4 uses dancing trees, which obsolete the balanced tree algorithms used in databases (see farther down). This makes Reiser4 more space efficient than other filesystems because we squish small files together rather than wasting space due to block alignment like they do. It also means that Reiser4 scales better than any other filesystem. Do you want a million files in a directory, and want to create them fast? No problem.
# Reiser4 is based on plugins, which means that it will attract many outside contributors, and you'll be able to upgrade to their innovations without reformatting your disk. If you like to code, you'll really like plugins....
# Reiser4 is architected for military grade security. You'll find it is easy to audit the code, and that assertions guard the entrance to every function

ghight · 12-22-2003, 09:45 AM

I don't know much about Reiserfs4, but it's not really a stable FS yet. Ext3 is ext2 with journaling. Very, very stable but not very scalable to large files (larger than a home computer would use). Reiserfs3 is ideal for handling millions of little bitty files and I've heard that it is good for small databases to. ext3 in 'ordered' mode is actually faster Reiserfs3, but apparently Reiserfs4 is supposed to at least equal ext3. For a low load home computer, I'd pick ext3 because it's more stable and supported much better (at this point) than Reiserfs. Reiserfs however is still a well respected fs and v3 I believe is considered stable for the 2.4 kernel.

breakerfall · 12-23-2003, 10:48 PM

Quote:

when i tried to access an ext3 partition, it said that the kernel didn't support ext3. i think it was using 2.4.x.

It's easy enough to config the kernel to support ext3 aswell as a whole bunch of other file systems and then simply recompile the kernel

kleptophobiac · 12-23-2003, 11:02 PM

I use reiserfs3 for all my slackware boxes... I haven't taken issue with it.

Then again, I only use them for game servers, small db servers, and whatnot. Works fine!

thegeekster · 12-23-2003, 11:46 PM

I guess it depends on what you'll be using Linux for. As I understand it, reiserfs is better suited for lots of smaller files and ext3 isn't as scalable (meaning it is a bit slower when handling very large or very small files). Ext3 is nothing more than ext2 with journaling added, but ext3 is supposed to be very stable and solid. Another thing to remember is that the extended fs has been around for a long time now, and reiser is relatively a newcomer, so there will bound to be more tools that will support ext3 than reiser. As a side note, I've been hearing some very good things about IBM's JFS, but it's still too new and hasn't withstood the test of time, yet, not to mention having fewer tools that support it.

Anyway, with that said, I've been using reiserfs (v3) with my Slack 9.1 machine (home PC) and haven't had any issues with it so far.

davidsrsb · 12-24-2003, 01:05 AM

reiser 3 supports 64k sub directories, ext3 32k. This one comes up with snort logs, where every IP address seen is give its own sub directory, allowing a DOS attack against linux based firewalls running this IDS.

Mugatu · 12-29-2003, 08:05 AM

what about XFS or JFS--what are their features/advantages?

davidsrsb · 01-05-2004, 08:19 AM

Both less mature than Reiser 3 and ext3. XFS has lots of fixes in progress at this time. They are both more capable but then Reiser 4 looks even better, just too new for serious use yet.

J.W. · 01-05-2004, 10:31 PM

I'm no expert, but both reiser and ext3 support journaling, whereas ext2 does not. In the event of a crash, journaling can save you from some pain, although if the crash is severe enough, your drive itself may be rendered useless, in which case your filesystem choice won't make much difference. I'm not aware of any significant performance differences, and for my 2 cents, I don't think it really matters all that much whether you go with reiser or ext3. Personally, I go with ext3. -- J.W.

jtshaw · 01-05-2004, 11:10 PM

ext3 is really only good for updating ext2 partitions to something with a journal on it. Personally I would never use it to build a new file system as Reiser is a much better system (in my opinion).

Reiserfs uses balancing (I believe) binary search tree for storing things, so it is super fast at accessing files. I have been using it since the late 2.2 days and I love it.

As far as Reiser4 goes, once it is stable (which it is definitly not now), and has the neccesary tools for it, it'll be the best linux file system around. They did some pretty cool things with it. If you are interested in learning about it go to Hans site (http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html).