Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
|
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.
|
 |
|
01-23-2006, 10:53 AM
|
#1
|
LQ Newbie
Registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 24
Rep:
|
What to choose: JFS, XFS or ext3 ?
hi,
I will format my two 200GB SATA drives that I have for storage from NTFS to something new.
These disks are for storage only and there will be 700+MB files and smaller like 4+MB files meaning (mp3 and some movies, all legally acquired  )
So I was wondering what filesystem should I choose.
The first thought was for ext3 but after doing some search on the net I believe that JFS or XFS are better options.
Has anyone tried any of those two filesystems: XFS, JFS ?
I will be using kernel 2.6.x and x86_64 and x86.
Any opinions/recomendations/suggestions are welcome 
|
|
|
01-23-2006, 11:28 AM
|
#2
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Aguascalientes, AGS. Mexico.
Distribution: Slackware 13.0 kernel 2.6.29.6
Posts: 816
Rep:
|
my suggestion is reiserFS, it has been always kind to me and I feel it faster over ext3. I don't know for sure over XFS nor JFS. Though I manage a couple of Sun Solaris servers which have UFS, it's fast and stable as hell too, but I'm not sure if it can be used on Linux 
|
|
|
01-23-2006, 12:45 PM
|
#3
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: In my house.
Distribution: Ubuntu 10.10 64bit, Slackware 13.1 64-bit
Posts: 2,649
Rep:
|
I use reiserfs too. I've run into problems with ext2 and ext3, (Mostly I'm my worst enemy), and have found that reiserfs has the speed and stability that I'm looking for. It's journaling and security extensions are just what I need. Of course, for every GNU/Linux user out there, there will be an opinion. Do some research on the pros/cons of each.
|
|
|
01-23-2006, 01:01 PM
|
#4
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,870
|
yeah, i'd go for ReiserFS also...
then again, i'm just basing myself on the great experience i've had with reiserfs, it's not like i think the other ones suck or anything... in fact, i've never used JFS, for example, as i've never really had any need for it since reiserfs has always worked so smoothly for me... the only time i ever use something other than reiserfs is when i'm building a ramdisk or something like that with ext2...
just my  ...
|
|
|
01-23-2006, 02:36 PM
|
#5
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2004
Distribution: Void Linux, former Slackware
Posts: 498
Rep: 
|
Reiserfs & Reiser4 tend to be more effective on small files, but are more CPU resources hungry at the same time.
XFS tends to be effective with operations on large files and has lower CPU usage.
Ext3 seems to be very polished(fast,reliable) in recent kernels.
I don't know JFS but benchmarks say it has lowest CPU consumption of mentioned filesystems.
It looks like optimal filesystem for storing huge files like video streams is XFS but I'd suggest to test all fs with own benchmarks because on different HW results my vary.
Last edited by dunric; 01-23-2006 at 02:37 PM.
|
|
|
01-23-2006, 04:05 PM
|
#6
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852
|
For a large scale file server like you are talking about, XFS is definitely the way to go.
It's performance with large file structures is unmatched, I noticed a significant improvement coming from ReiserFS.
I use XFS now on my 1/2 TB file server, and in the year and some odd months it has been up, never had any problems.
I deal with many ISOs (CD and DVD) and have a little over 13 thousand MP3s on the server, and performance with both has been just great.
|
|
|
01-23-2006, 06:17 PM
|
#7
|
Senior Member
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware15.0 64-Bit Desktop, Debian 11 non-free Toshiba Satellite Notebook
Posts: 4,306
|
Taken from this article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS#Disadvantages
Quote:
There is no way to shrink an XFS filesystem in-place.
(Older versions of XFS suffered from out-of-order write hazards, which can result in problems such as files being appended to during a crash gaining a tail of garbage on the next mount.)
|
The second one is the most distressing, and also the only other problem, and if you don't have a bunch of files exceeding 500+MB, XFS might not be the way to go. As far as I know ext3, Reiserfs, or even JFS should serve you just fine, I don't know what version of Reiserfs I have, I am just running the current version available on my Slackware10.0 ,2.4.26 kernel, and have no real issues I can think of with Reiserfs.
|
|
|
01-24-2006, 02:57 PM
|
#8
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: Bay
Distribution: Zenwalk, OpenBSD, Slackware
Posts: 167
Rep:
|
Other things I've noticed by living with both Reiserfs and ext3:
ext3 boots faster than reiserfs because it doesn't check the fs during boottime, like reiserfs does. In larger volumes, this can save you from seconds to minutes depending on how large the filesystem is.
ext3 journals both data and metadata, which in turn means that it's more fault-tolerant than reiserfs, but it makes the filesystem slower because it has to write twice as much as reiserfs.
|
|
|
01-24-2006, 03:07 PM
|
#9
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 44
Rep:
|
ReiserFS, because its the only file system I found that managed to undelete from after a momentary lapse (rm -R /).
This site helped.
|
|
|
01-24-2006, 07:53 PM
|
#10
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: Guadalajara, Jal, Mexico
Distribution: Slackware Linux
Posts: 211
Rep:
|
I have tried them both and my suggestion is to throw a coin in the air... They both are quite fast and capable, but I've seen that the tools for XFS are a little more mature than the JFS ones.
As for ReiserFS, I can't say for sure, but I have heard both, it can be a real nightmare or a precious dream.
Personally I trust more JFS in terms of performance (specially when compared with CPU usage), but XFS wins for me when talking about reliability, so it's actually up to you.
|
|
|
01-24-2006, 09:24 PM
|
#11
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Lee, NH
Distribution: OpenSUSE, CentOS, RHEL
Posts: 1,794
Rep:
|
I vote for Reiser.
|
|
|
01-24-2006, 10:11 PM
|
#12
|
Member
Registered: May 2004
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Mandrake,Slackware,RedHat
Posts: 157
Rep:
|
I read about FS benchmark in a linux-journal magazine. XFS is the way to go but reiserfs is catching up fast.
|
|
|
01-27-2006, 11:06 AM
|
#13
|
LQ Newbie
Registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 24
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I am thinking of reiserFS but I haven't decided yet..
I read that JFS is kinda unstable on the linux yet and that XFS uses a lot of memory and it's better to be used with SCSI.I have SATA 
I see some really interesting replies here
Any more opinions are welcome 
Last edited by spinner_0; 01-27-2006 at 11:09 AM.
|
|
|
01-28-2006, 12:17 AM
|
#14
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: NJ, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 5,852
|
I run XFS on IDE myself.
|
|
|
01-28-2006, 09:57 AM
|
#15
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Aguascalientes, AGS. Mexico.
Distribution: Slackware 13.0 kernel 2.6.29.6
Posts: 816
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS3FGX
I run XFS on IDE myself.
|
that's interesting. I would like to do it here too. Any tips or suggestions?
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 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
|
|