filetype

AGilley007 · 07-29-2004, 12:05 AM

ext3 or resiserfs or however you spell it what is better?

Cedrik · 07-29-2004, 12:22 AM

For my personal experience, I did not see too much performance difference with Ext3 vs Reiserfs, but I don't test the filesystem with a web server running and connect many client for example, I just test it with workstation jobs.

In other case, I noticed a big difference when manipulating big files like avi movies with the XFS filesystem. With it, cp, rm and mv operations on big files take much less time.

MikeZila · 07-29-2004, 08:31 AM

Between the two, I use ReiserFS; but I don't make that choice on the basis of anything other than how the name sounds. Most people have a hard time finding big differences between the two, so I just picked the one that sounded cooler. *shrugs* I've used both ext3 and ReiserFS, both perform well for common workstation tasks. (I used the work 'workstation' lightly, as I only use my computer for common home tasks. Games, Kword, Quake3, etc.)

However, if you'll have a ton of small files, you should pick ReiserFS.

LittleAngel · 07-29-2004, 12:13 PM

XFS certainly is the fastest filesystem around, but for stability reason I use ReiserFS (invented by a Mr Reiser from Germany, hence name), you can look up more info on the ReiserFS and the soon to come Reiser4 here: http://www.namesys.com/

If you want to work your computer in dual boot with a Windows system (specially NTFS) or for a samba server working with Windows, you should use ReiserFS.

EXT3 has been around a long time, so it is also very stable, but doesn't work as well with Windows.

Terri