Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum. |
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.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
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.
|
 |
|
07-31-2003, 11:54 PM
|
#1
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu
Posts: 325
Rep:
|
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 
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 03:35 AM
|
#2
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 169
Rep:
|
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
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 03:53 AM
|
#3
|
Senior Member
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Beautiful BC
Distribution: RedHat & clones, Slackware, SuSE, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,791
Rep:
|
jfs is a cooler one. xfs is the coolest one.
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 04:49 AM
|
#4
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: NSW. Australia
Distribution: Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware
Posts: 181
Rep:
|
Whtast the diff and advantages/disadvantages over etx2, etx3, reiserfs, etc....???
I am running Slackware 9.0 and reiserfs.
Is that good?
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 04:53 AM
|
#5
|
Senior Member
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Beautiful BC
Distribution: RedHat & clones, Slackware, SuSE, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,791
Rep:
|
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 07:51 AM
|
#6
|
Senior Member
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: Gentoo x86_64; FreeBSD; OS X
Posts: 3,764
Rep:
|
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.
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 09:50 AM
|
#7
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Distribution: Mepis Linux 2004
Posts: 547
Rep:
|
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...
Last edited by jon_k; 08-01-2003 at 09:55 AM.
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 10:45 AM
|
#8
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu
Posts: 325
Original Poster
Rep:
|
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?
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 10:59 AM
|
#9
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Dec 2002
Distribution: Gentoo!
Posts: 1,153
Rep:
|
In my profile under bookmarks I have some links to websites with a ton about ext3 and reiserfs
here is ext3
and resier
Last edited by darin3200; 08-01-2003 at 11:01 AM.
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 02:02 PM
|
#10
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Distribution: Slack 10.1
Posts: 2,194
Rep:
|
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.
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 02:15 PM
|
#11
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu
Posts: 325
Original Poster
Rep:
|
thanks for the infos, the links.. guys....
ure the best 
thanks
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 02:19 PM
|
#12
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu
Posts: 325
Original Poster
Rep:
|
hmmmmmmm
im also wondering...
those links presented REISERFS performs slower than EXT3..
but why do you keep on using REISERFS than EXT3?
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 05:54 PM
|
#13
|
Senior Member
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: Gentoo x86_64; FreeBSD; OS X
Posts: 3,764
Rep:
|
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
Last edited by bulliver; 08-01-2003 at 09:35 PM.
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 06:02 PM
|
#14
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Jette, Brussels Hoofstedelijk Gewest
Distribution: Debian sid, RedHat 9, Suse 8.2
Posts: 446
Rep:
|
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.
|
|
|
08-01-2003, 09:39 PM
|
#15
|
Senior Member
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: Gentoo x86_64; FreeBSD; OS X
Posts: 3,764
Rep:
|
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 09:36 AM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|