Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:47:29 +0900 David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ext3 is best if you are dealing with a mixture of both and has the added security factor of defaulting to Ext2 if it fails. Although I have never had reason to find out. I'm in the habit of using buggy and crash-prone hardware D.on't know why; I guess I just don't like buying new hardware, am too lazy to haul faulty stuff back to the store, and don't mind the occasional cold reboot. Anyway, while I often had minor and rather harmless corruption on ext2 systems from these shutdowns, I've never had any issues after switching to ext3. Recovering journal... and that's it. Same for USB (and encrypted) disks that I often forget to properly unmount. Don't know anything about other systems, but also see no reason to try them out. --D. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Jimmy Wu wrote: (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. I haven't found it to be flaky on system crashes. I have found it to be extremely unforgiving of disk corruption and IDE bus problems. I was able to recover the data with reiserfsck, but it took a very long time. When it was done I had to sort through a lot of files with no names. This can happen to other filesystems, too, but Reiser is the only filesystem I've used where it's happened to every file on the system. Also, ReiserFS4 is not backwards compatible with ReiserFS3, making 3 a bit of an orphan. I no longer use ReiserFS for new systems because I figure 3 will eventually not be maintained, and I don't want to be forced to change whole filesystems when I do future kernel upgrades. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Jimmy Wu wrote: On Jan 18, 2008 4:27 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: xfs sure does copy and delete really large files faster - I do use it for video at home. How big do files have to be before one starts to notice the advantages of XFS? In my experience, delete performance differences become noticeable when you get over 1 gigabyte. ext3 (and ext2) blocks *all* writes to the filesystem during deletes, and deleting multi-gigabyte files can take several seconds. This can be problematic in, for example, video recording applications; if a recording is in progress, you'll drop frames during the delete. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Hello, I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD. I've looked around on Google, and come up with a lot of frustratingly conflicting advice. For example, an article from debian-administration touts XFS as the best in performance. But other sites mention that XFS may be more vulnerable to corruption on a crash/power outage than the other file systems. Then, people disagree on the performance of ext3 vs ReiserFS. In an attempt to get some definitive answers, I threw together some of the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a simple true/false is enough for most of them). So, here goes: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? That's all I have for now. Thanks in advance for your help Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 ext2. Never have used any other. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Hello, I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD. Hello Jimmy, I have found: Xfs is best for large file sizes, if that's what you are dealing with - graphics, and the ilk; Reiserfs is best for smaller file sizes; Ext3 is best if you are dealing with a mixture of both and has the added security factor of defaulting to Ext2 if it fails. Although I have never had reason to find out. Regards, -- David Palmer Linux User - #352034 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
On 2008-01-18T16:11:17-0500, Jimmy Wu wrote: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. I use ext3 on same hardware, and (clean) mounts do not take any significant time: [ 19.209034] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. [ 19.209039] VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly. [ 22.708260] EXT3 FS on sda1, internal journal [ 22.711688] usb 1-2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice The entire boot process takes about a minute. (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? No. /Allan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a group reply to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell me/flame me gently, and I won't do it again. On Jan 18, 2008 4:27 PM, Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This question is very close to what is the best religion for me? Haha, I like that :-) [...] Use ext3 and be done with it. Tried, true good rescue tools if you need them (I never have). IF you need the other fs, you would know it. Your killer app would tell you to use fs $X. For a home user, ext3 just works. Given this and the general gist of the other responses, I am thinking I will just go with ext3 for everything. On Jan 18, 2008 4:31 PM, Brian McKee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me throw out a few more unsubstantiated statements. This is my opinion 'cause you asked for it I appreciate the input. Unless you have a real need for something special, just use ext3. It is the most widely used and supported, and has a good track record. None of the other file systems offer enough of an advantage for your kind of application to make them worth wandering off the main trail so to speak. As stated above, I guess I will stick with ext3. xfs sure does copy and delete really large files faster - I do use it for video at home. How big do files have to be before one starts to notice the advantages of XFS? I don't think, in the course of normal usage, that I will have any really huge files aside from a few isos, with the largest possible size being a 4GB DVD iso. Then again, isos are usually meant to be downloaded and burned, and possibly deleted later, not to be copied/shuffled around on an HD, so it probably won't be worth making an xfs partition for the isos, right? On Jan 18, 2008 6:10 PM, Александър Л. Димитров [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would you need FS-performance for? You're not going to host a data base, are you? If it's a personal laptop then performance differences between modern file systems won't be noticable at all. Don't mind those benchmarks, that's all hogwash. Yeah Reiser performs well in some benchmarks, but I've never noticed _any_ difference, instead that takes an awful amount of time to mount it after an unclean unmount. Well, if fs performance isn't noticeable, then I'll drop that as a criterion for choosing fs and go with ext3, which seems to be the most reliable. Why would you want to modify your laptop's partition table? Your better off not to misuse and abuse that small disk anyways, they tend to have rather short life spans. If I want to reinstall stuff, I may want to resize partitions. I didn't mention before that I have Windows Vista sitting in a 30 GB partition at the beginning of the drive. It came with the laptop, and I shrank it down using the built-in partition editor to the smallest size it would let me, and I don't plan on touching it unless there is some hardware issue or I run across Windows only software at school/work. For such a relatively high-end laptop, Vista runs sluggishly at best. There is no instant, responsive feel, as opening anything involves a slight delay. The first time Vista starts to give me problems, I'm going to wipe it and either shrink its partition and replace it with XP or possibly give all the space to Debian, repartitioning/reinstalling as necessary. I hope my HD won't complain about that. Sure. But who the hell uses JFS on a laptop? :-) Some of the forums google turned up had people who did, and who claimed it worked well (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. Arguably, yes. My /var is still Reiser, too. So would you advise that I do the same? As previously stated, I am leaning towards keeping things simple and making everything, including /var ext3 to be consistent. (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance Yes. And there's no need mixing fs' on a laptop, either. See comment above on /var. Thanks again to everyone who responded! -- Jimmy Registered Linux User #454138
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Quoth Hugo Vanwoerkom: ext2. Never have used any other. I seriously hope that this was a joke... Aleks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Quoth Jimmy Wu: I've looked around on Google, and come up with a lot of frustratingly conflicting advice. That's because file systems are Voodoo. Everyone wants to take part in the discussion, without anyone really understanding what they're talking about. For example, an article from debian-administration touts XFS as the best in performance. What would you need FS-performance for? You're not going to host a data base, are you? If it's a personal laptop then performance differences between modern file systems won't be noticable at all. Don't mind those benchmarks, that's all hogwash. Yeah Reiser performs well in some benchmarks, but I've never noticed _any_ difference, instead that takes an awful amount of time to mount it after an unclean unmount. But other sites mention that XFS may be more vulnerable to corruption on a crash/power outage than the other file systems. That is correct, and a reason to avoid it. Then, people disagree on the performance of ext3 vs ReiserFS. Then again, those people would even disagree on the current local weather. In an attempt to get some definitive answers, I threw together some of the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a simple true/false is enough for most of them). So, here goes: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. If you're fighting for seconds and nanoseconds... perhaps. I suggest you stop minding the seconds, though, it's of no good use. When do you need to mount that thing except at boot time? Right, never. And when do you boot? Right, you got a laptop with suspend/resume... my laptop's uptimes frequently make it from one minor kernel revision to the other. (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. Why would you want to modify your laptop's partition table? Your better off not to misuse and abuse that small disk anyways, they tend to have rather short life spans. (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. Sure. But who the hell uses JFS on a laptop? (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. Yes, it _will_ be flaky. I've never lost actual data, but that was due to caution and backups. (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. Arguably, yes. My /var is still Reiser, too. (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. And what of all do you need? Right, data integrity. Firefox won't load faster if you're on Reiser4 or Reiser3. It will just be the same. On a laptop, you don't want to lose data, because you're not likely to make backups that often (imagine when you're away for two weeks, on the road with just your laptop). (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance Yes. And there's no need mixing fs' on a laptop, either. (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? There is no advantage in using /boot altogether. Really, use ext3 for /home and choose freely for the other stuff. You're free to experiment, but don't experiment with your personal data. Nothing but _HEADACHE_, pure old brain-torturing headache will come from losing personal data. Aleks signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Damon L. Chesser wrote: Jimmy Wu wrote: Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a group reply to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell me/flame me gently, and I won't do it again. no, responding like you did, is by def. bottom posting. ---comment- -response-- Technically, no. Bottom posting is where all the response is at the bottom of the reply. What Jimmy did goes by various names, interleaved posting being one of them. At any rate, Jimmy used the proper method for this list. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a group reply to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell me/flame me gently, and I won't do it again. no, responding like you did, is by def. bottom posting. ---comment- -response-- and i just found out my left and right arrow above the ',' and '.' keys don't work, in fact none of my upper row keys work , zoinks. snip -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote: Hello, I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD. I've looked around on Google, and come up with a lot of frustratingly conflicting advice. For example, an article from debian-administration touts XFS as the best in performance. But other sites mention that XFS may be more vulnerable to corruption on a crash/power outage than the other file systems. Then, people disagree on the performance of ext3 vs ReiserFS. In an attempt to get some definitive answers, I threw together some of the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a simple true/false is enough for most of them). So, here goes: (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times. (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be extended if needed. (3) JFS performance degrades on larger filesystems, but is least CPU intensive for smaller file systems. (4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash. (5) ReiserFS is the best choice for /var. (6) On a continuum, XFS offers the best performance, ext3 offers the most data integrity / chances of recovering from a crash, and JFS is in the middle. (7) Mixing too many file systems in one system will degrade performance (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3? That's all I have for now. Thanks in advance for your help Jimmy -- Registered Linux User #454138 This question is very close to what is the best religion for me? However, I will try to answer it and avoid going into religion. Use ext3 and be done with it. Tried, true good rescue tools if you need them (I never have). IF you need the other fs, you would know it. Your killer app would tell you to use fs $X. For a home user, ext3 just works. If any other is a better performer and that bothers you, perhaps you might want to run Gentoo so you can optimize your kernel to save time. I am not trying to be a smart alec, just saying with all the time you might save, over the course of a year, you MIGHT be able to drink a beer. As far as I know, all major distros default to ext3. the rest are mostly for special purpose, ie, you run the data base Foo and they say to set up a raid 1 with a fs of JFS. I am not aware of any advantage over ext2 vs ext3 on /boot. as for ReiserFS, I would not put anything into it in light of Mr. Reiser's troubles. I do not know the future of it. Now I will read the rebuttals and learn! HTH! P.S If you want to know the best religion contact me off list (joking!, please don't!) -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
