Since the recent thread about filesystems and which to use, I would like to cast a poll to see what *IS* the official FS used by all us Slackers.

I already vote for JFS, and the reason is that it is the fastest on my old machine, and offers the best throughput even on my superfast dual core notebook, yet very stable and recovers nicely during a dirty unmount when there is a power outtage (this applies obviously to my old machine, see my sig...) So, here we go, what is the official FS for Slackers (at least here on LQ, )

JFS all the way for me:-)

Huh, I thought everyone just used ext3... guess I'll need to check out some other filesystems next time I reinstall...

So far it is JFS, but this is early and I am not calling anything yet. It can go either way. Reasons for your preferred FS is not really required, but if you do decide to list your reasoning for using said FS, that would be helpful. To reiterate on my reasoning for using JFS, is that it seems the most balanced, and even on a very VERY old machine, it's performance makes all the difference, and so using it even on a more modern machine does make all the difference.

I'd use JFS on any new machine too. Smallest memory and cpu footprint of a journaling fs that I know of. And quite good performance.

I use ext3 on both my boxes. I will have a look at jfs next though.

I'm just change to JFS recently. Reinstall Slackware because I want to re-arrange my partitions, so it's a chance to change file system too. Not so sure that if I heard from this forums or #Slackware that JFS is quite fast, that's why I try it out.

I'm using ext3 with a full journal, the best you can get - it's really mature.

JFS is the best, second I'd put XFS.

Using EXT3 because its the most compatible across all OS, I use Vista, MacOS, Linux Machines (even though I don't own a Mac right now ), you can get a mature drive for pretty much every OS for EXT3, and its quite fast and has journaling, too.

Had XFS running earlier but suffered Data loss and incompatibility.

JFS: I used reiserfs for a long time, and JFS seems to recover faster, work faster in the first place, and I have had no major problems (none with reiserfs either).

Joel

Just to balance this comment, I've been running XFS for years now, and suffered no data loss.

Of course, now I've said that...

Compatibility isn't something I need right now since everything I have is linux based, or otherwise, it's networked transparently

In the beginning, it was ext2. The thing that used to annoy me about it was the FSCK every 10th reboot. Sometimes it'd go for half an hour or so.

Then, I migrated to reiserfs, but then I read about the problems it could have recovering certain types of file. I tried ext3, but it is just so darn slow.

So I've been using XFS for the past couple of years, with nothing major to report. At the time I switched to it, it was the fastest, and has proven to be reliable for me. BUT... I seem to recall reading something about XFS under Linux having to operate through some sort of translation layer, but I don't know how true it is... I haven't noticed any major performance bottlenecks, anyhow.

ReiserFS here. So far so good!

Hi terrio! You are the first user I have seen from Halifax/NS-- I'm from Halifax too

On subject: I still use Ext2, and will for the foreseeable future just because it is what I used when I installed.. When I came to Linux and was installing Slackware, I knew little to nothing about all the Linux file systems, and Ext2 seemed to be a 'standard' and 'normal', and I didn't know what was involved with the journaled systems.

Based on the feedback in this thread, I will at some point look into JFS and learn more about it.

FWIW I have been happy with Ext2; it's reliable; no data losses, and FSCK is infrequent enough & fast enough to not bother me.

SVA