I have been using ext3 because ext3 was better than ext4 at survival through a power outage. And my boxes are in a location where the power goes out randomly. My boss won't pay for a UPS.

But I doubt that's the case anymore. My understanding is that if you choose ext3, its still ext4 using an ext3 mode.

ext4 - tried and true.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi,

I have been using EXT for a long time and migrated to EXT4 without issues. Most of my systems use 'SSD' and I find no issues. Long term storage is still on spinners but my active uses are with 'SSD' and EXT4.

Hope this helps.
Have fun & enjoy!

1 members found this post helpful.

I stuck with ext2 for a long time. It works. It works well. But eventually I got tired of waiting for fsck to crawl through a 1TB ext2 partition, and moved to ext3. Ext3 works. It works well.

Today I use ext4 because it seems to be the (arguably more-or-less) de-facto Linux file system. It works. It gets the job done. It has never let me down.

Interesting, some time back I was wondering as to what "EXT4-fs (sda4): couldn't mount as ext3 due to feature incompatibilities" was doing in my syslog and you've just reminded me of it. I didn't understand why it was trying to mount an ext4 drive as ext3 but I was flat out at the time so didn't look into it and subsequently forgot since it didn't effect anything. Time for a bit of research

I use ext2 for my /boot, btrfs for /(root), and ntfs for a shared /home.

I've been using JFS for a very long time. Really can't remember why. Could be it's journaling capability, since back when I choose to go with JFS, ext2 was the basic FS in Linux. Could be that I used JFS with OS/2 and decided to stick with a similar FS in Linux. At any rate, right now my system disk on this setup is formatted as ext4. I had a hard disk failure and decided to switch to ext4 as the FS to restore to. My back up disk is still formatted as JFS.

BTRFS with real-time enabled,,, for years now...

A combo of JFS and XFS. /boot and /root are JFS but /home partition and external HD is now XFS. JFS is nice, but I realized when I have utilized significant amount and have large files, JFS seems to suffer in performance.

When choosing a filesystem I usually stick to the default, as I have no particular reason to use something else. However, in this thread I've been reading a few interesting posts about alternate filesystems, which might turn out to be useful in my case as well.

I always use XFS but I kind of forgot why I chose it in the first place. These days I probably just like its name better than EXT4...

I've been using ReiserFS since I started using linux in 2000. Where I live (truly out in the woods) a small windstorm can knock out the power or make the power blink on and off every thirty seconds for five minutes, etc.

Before I knew of UPS's, and when I was still using Windows, it would really screw up my hdd's and many times I'd lose everything.

When I started using linux and ReiserFS, this kind of thing could happen all the time and I *never* lost a single byte of anything. My hdd's have always lasted me for years and as far as I've seen when trying other file systems, there's no bit of difference in speed or anything else, so I just stick with what I know works for me and works well. I'll continue to keep using Reiser until I either am too old to even get on a keyboard anymore or for some reason they stop shipping Reiser with distro's and then I'lljust quit doing anything with computers and sell the darn thing.

1 members found this post helpful.

JFS is my pick for strained setups - least CPU/RAM for most I/O on a typical Slackware root partition - closest to ext2 but has proper journal
ReiserFS is my pick for least head travel - for physical spinning platters - also very reliable and time proven.
EXT4 is my pick for common "daily drivers" - most 3rd party support and really decent performance.

XFS didn't use since millennium turnover - too exotic to my taste (and kind of an RAM monger)

so, what to do if our data is stuck in the wrong FS format, how to migrate without spare storage?

FSTransform can in situ convert many to many filesystems - i tried it once for my 1TB backup NAS ( JFS --> EXT4 ) ran it on a Banana PI and it ended well (only 16hours for ~700GB) on a proper desktop it would take like a couple of hours (~2.5?).

3 members found this post helpful.

The installer noted that ext2 is fast and stable, I use that one and compile it into kernel.
Used jfs for root before, now I just use it for some backups.
Still use FAT32 with syslinux for ghost and all other removables, I've found out it's much faster for bootable drives, not sure why.
The official usb install script from slack DVD formats a vfat which starts at 2048, and those bootables take about 2 minutes to load kernels here.
Formatting a FAT32 which starts at 64 boots kernels in seconds, maybe this is hardware related but it's my reason for this FS.

1 members found this post helpful.

Of course the B E S T :

ZFS

:hattip :