Just 2 things I'll add. Following Gentoo's instructions will also end you up with a system where /boot isn't left mounted. So the chances of FS corruption are almost zero. Having said that, EXT3 actually does give you journaling.
Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:36 AM Subject: RE: (clug-talk) Another File System question - Solved. > I read further (and closer) into the install guide for Gentoo. It is very > through (so far), and describes the 4 main options for File systems (ext3, > Reiser, XFX, and JFS), and where/when it would be best to use each. > > Turns out that XFS is a higher end file system for use with firewire or > other high performance drives. So, I've settled on the recommended file > systems (ext3 for the boot partition, and Reiser for my root partition) - > mostly because it makes sense (not just because it said so). Ext3 for the > boot partition because it isn't likely to change too often, removing the > need for journaling - but, I'd like the drive to be stable/recoverable in > the event of a crash. And Reiser for the root partition because it WILL see > the most activity, and journaling will be required there, and will be > dealing with a number of small files (which turn out to be approx 4 KB or > smaller according to the documentation). > > Yep, turns out that I'm learning a fair bit working through the Gentoo > install. But in the end, I think I'll be better off because of it. > > Thanks for the support though!! <grins> > > Shawn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:57 PM > To: CLUG (E-mail) > Subject: (clug-talk) Another File System question. > > > Ok, I've followed the discussion, and reviewed the links that were posted in > response to my original question, and I'm still not clear which FS would be > the "right" choice in my case. > > As near as I can tell, Reiser handles small files well. XFS apparently does > an adequate job of small to medium sized files, but really excels at large > files. What exactly constitutes a "medium" file? I'd assume a file size of > a few bytes or kilobytes would be small, and 100 MB would be large. But > would a 3 MB file be considered large? Medium? Small? > > For my purposes, I'm looking for the "right" (if there is any single correct > answer) file system for a server running Apache, Postfix, and Samba, and > possibly FTP (though I don't think that figures into the decision much). > Most of the web pages would be very small , but I may choose to store my MP3 > collection there and maybe access it via the Internet, or place some high > resolution/dpi images on my pages. In this case, would Reiser be the better > solution because it handles small files better, and suffer, if needed, when > accessing larger files? Or would XFS be the better choice because it is > adequate with small files, and best for large files? > > The articles I've read are a bit out of date, so I'm not sure if my > conclusions are valid. Have the performance and upper limits of the file > systems changed? (XFS can hold more overall, and the largest file size it > can create is better than Reiser). > > Currently, I'm leaning towards Reiser because it looks as though it has a > wider user base (aka more community support). And it'll likely meet my > meager needs. > > Comments are welcomed. And thanks for the entertaining, and educational > discussions.... > > Shawn > > >
