SUSE / openSUSEThis Forum is for the discussion of Suse 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.
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.
I have installed Suse 10.0 64 bit on a AMD Athlon 64.
I have tried the following filesystem avaible:
ext2: no journaling, works sometimes very fast, rocksolid.
ext3: ext2 with journal
xfs: buggy: in KDE, I created the Susehelp Index and the program htdig crashed reproducible.
reiserfs: havenīt tested it yet; if someone post.
all file systems have their up and downsides,
and having the right filesystem actually depends on what you want to do with it., so you might want to specify this in your post!
i'm not an expert on this matter so the links posted by diegoxcn can probably tell you all you need to know,
when you want to use it for a desktopsystem its recomended to have a journaling filesystem, because its simply a much greater risk that the system will crash or the power will be switched off and on by a frustrated user then it would be the case when you are running a server.
i personaly prefer to use reiserfs simply because it has never let me down so i never concidered to switch!
I've used ext2, ext3 and reiserfs. I like reiserfs the best. I have not run any performance tests or actually noticed any difference. But I have managed to screw up my file system - e.g. destroying files/parts of files with ext2 and ext3 but I've never managed to do that with reiser.
Besides: reiser is newer == cooler :-)
That said, if you use your computer as a desktop machine I don't think you'll notice any difference.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.