Best filesystem for a slow machine.

failure_man · 11-25-2004, 04:39 PM

I plan to put Slackware 10 on a very slow system: an old Packard Hell MII-300 with 64 megs of RAM.

On systems where I have room to play I typically use Reiserfs, but in this case I'm not sure if that's such a good idea. I'm not worried particularly about fscking time as I am about CPU load.

Can I save much by using ext2 instead of a modern, journaling filesystem?

Shade · 11-25-2004, 04:51 PM

ext2 would be the speediest choice, but if you're also looking for reliability, I'd still choose reiserfs.

Of course, it's also going to depend on what you'll be using this machine for.

--Shade

flyingpants · 11-26-2004, 09:19 AM

how about ext3?

is it a good idea? if it isn't.. too late now. :\ on a p1 with 32mb of ram.

Pollyanna · 11-26-2004, 10:05 AM

Hi,

to me it seems as if ReiserFS is as good as Ext3 for normal use.

I prefer ReiserFS, but had no negative experiences with Ext3 either. 8-)

The biggest differences are *slightly* more speed for ReiserFS (but mostly You and I would not notice) and, if I recall it correctly, ReiserFS keeps track of metadata *and* data in its journal, while Ext3 only keeps track of metadata.
Ah, Ext3 can be mounted as Ext2.

So there is no really big difference and don`t fix it if ain`t broken. ;-)

Greetings

Pollyanna