If you care about things like quotas or extended ACLs, my understanding
is that ext3 is your best bet on that.

JSR/

On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:36 -0400, Nick Cummings wrote:
> I'm switching to a new hard drive on one of my computers, and I'm curious 
> about which file system type is best for which sort of situation.  When I 
> first played with Linux, it seemed like ext2 was the only common choice, 
> but now ext3 and reiserfs are pretty common, not to mention XFS and JFS. 
> In recent years I've just used reiserfs for everything, but I'm curious if 
> there are good reasons to use something different.  I realize that which 
> FS to use depends on the requirements, so let me explain those a bit.
> 
> All my machines are just for use by a few people, so downtime is not a big 
> concern; thus, the length of time it takes to check a file system not 
> cleanly unmounted is not an issue (within reason).  As you might guess, I 
> don't know a whole lot about FSs, so something with reasonably well 
> developed tools in Linux would be preferable.  Generally, I have 3 sorts 
> of partitions:
> 
> /
> 
> The root file system is generally 1-5 GB and generally has small to 
> moderate size files.  I don't heavily customize my system, so reinstalling 
> the OS would not be the end of the world.  As a result, preventing loss of 
> data is not the primary concern here.  Probably the biggest concern is 
> speed.  Efficient use of disk space is probably a secondary concern.
> 
> 
> /home
> 
> This will generally by 5-10 GB and contain files ranging from a few k to 
> 100 MBs or so.  Since this is where most personal files are located, 
> obviously I'd like to avoid data corruption as much as possible, though 
> this should be backed up.  Speed and efficient use of disk space are still 
> a concern, but probably secondary.
> 
> 
> /storage
> 
> This would be some large partition for storing all the my eMusic mp3s and 
> other media.  It would be about 100 GB and contain files from 1-500 MB in 
> size.  The integrity of the data and efficient use of disk space are the 
> most important factors here.  Speed is probably less important.  I was 
> especially wondering in this case if some FSs would perform poorly with a 
> partition this large.
> 
> 
> Which FS is best suited to each task, or does it really just not make that 
> much difference?
> 
> Nick

Reply via email to