LinuxQuestions.org
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Software (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/)
-   -   i just installed a stock RH8 and heard that reiserfs is cool. can i use it in my RH8? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-software-2/i-just-installed-a-stock-rh8-and-heard-that-reiserfs-is-cool-can-i-use-it-in-my-rh8-77895/)

kublador 07-31-2003 10:54 PM
i just installed a stock RH8 and heard that reiserfs is cool. can i use it in my RH8?
 
i just installed a stock RH8 and heard that reiserfs is cool. can i use it in my RH8?
what will i do?
convert all partitions except the swap to reiserFS filesystem?
how can i do that without data loss?
please help..
thanks and God bless ;)

joel112 08-01-2003 02:35 AM
i dont think red hat has an option to use reiser fs, although slackware does, perhaps try out slackware if you really want reiser fs

ppuru 08-01-2003 02:53 AM
jfs is a cooler one. xfs is the coolest one.

ludeKing 08-01-2003 03:49 AM
Whtast the diff and advantages/disadvantages over etx2, etx3, reiserfs, etc....???

I am running Slackware 9.0 and reiserfs.

Is that good?

ppuru 08-01-2003 03:53 AM
here you go

http://oregonstate.edu/~kveton/fs/
and
http://lwn.net/2001/0830/a/jfs-comparison.php3

bulliver 08-01-2003 06:51 AM
Well those examples are taken a little out of context I think. Most of us don't use dual P4's with 2GB ram.

If you are currently using reiserfs, there is no reason to change it. ext2 is an old filesystem with no journaling.

ext3, reiserfs, XFS etal are all journaling filesystems, which is a bonus for quick startups and better filesystem integrity.

Of course, each comes at the price of more options in your kernel, and more maintenance from you: the sysadmin.

Like I said, unless you are really interested in filesytems and want to try them out you might as well stick with reiserfs, because it's fine. I use it myself for every partition except /boot, which is ext3, just to be safe.

jon_k 08-01-2003 08:50 AM
So the older the filesystem the better?

Code:
Peak Performance Results:

EXT2      773 Mbps @ 44 clients
EXT3      660 Mbps @ 44 clients
Reiserfs  532 Mbps @ 28 clients
XFS      661 Mbps @ 44 clients
JFS      683 Mbps @ 40 clients
I saw that on http://lwn.net/2001/0830/a/jfs-comparison.php3 (ppuru posted this link)

It says EXT2 doesnt have journaling, i don't know what that means... why does journaling make the system boot up faster, explain how journaling works.... thank you alot -- i'd like to understand!

Also is states
Code:
In this test, JFS had the best peak throughput for journal filesystems,
and ext2 had the best peak throughput for all filesystems.  Reiserfs
had the lowest peak throughput, and also had the most % time in
stext_lock
So I also don't understand why you're all pro reiserfs when it had lowest peak throughput...
:newbie:

kublador 08-01-2003 09:45 AM
well.. which filesystem is the fastest for desktop use..
fastest in booting.. running simple apps like mozilla xchat gaim etc..
fastest in compiling...
any suggestions to fs that i can use instead of the fs that rh created during setup? is it ext3 or ext2? im using rh8?

darin3200 08-01-2003 09:59 AM
In my profile under bookmarks I have some links to websites with a ton about ext3 and reiserfs
here is ext3
and resier

aaa 08-01-2003 01:02 PM
Journaling filesystems have a journal in which they write what they're going to do before they do it. When in the middle of writing something they get interupted (like in a power outage), instead of taking forever to scan the disk and find any errors, they look in their journal to find out what was interupted. They are also a bit slower than non-journaling filesystems because everytime they write something they take note of it in their journal. Ext2 is faster than the rest, but if you didn't shutdown properly it takes forever to boot.

kublador 08-01-2003 01:15 PM
thanks for the infos, the links.. guys....
ure the best ;)
thanks

kublador 08-01-2003 01:19 PM
hmmmmmmm
im also wondering...
those links presented REISERFS performs slower than EXT3..
but why do you keep on using REISERFS than EXT3?

bulliver 08-01-2003 04:54 PM
Quote:
those links presented REISERFS performs slower than EXT3..
but why do you keep on using REISERFS than EXT3?
As i said, that study is a little out of context. The benchmark was performed om a dual P4, with 2gb of ram. Plus, certainly on my box I will never have up to 44 clients connecting at once..only a few webpages served once in a while, plus whatever I happen to be doing locally.

I am not really "pro-reiserfs", it just happens to be the default filesystem for the distro I use. I cetainly don't notice any lag, or delays when reading and writing files so why would I want to do something as drastic as change my entire filesystem? If your conviced by reading this that reiserfs sucks, by all means, change it to XFS or whatever...I just can't be bothered as it would be too much of a pain in the ass.

Besides, as some docs point out, JFS and XFS are not quite "ready for prime-time", so I just use one that has proven to be stable and reliable.

Here is another link I found that describes the different filesystems:
http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-10/jfs_01.html

Corin 08-01-2003 05:02 PM
Is it correct that reiserfs is actually better than ext3 for when you have directories full of very small files?

One drawback I heard concerning reiserfs is that it is not yet supported under LVM or software RAID, unlike ext3.

bulliver 08-01-2003 08:39 PM
Quote:
Is it correct that reiserfs is actually better than ext3 for when you have directories full of very small files?
I have also read that, but I am not sure what exactly a "small file" is... ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page