Someone actually did a performance comparison a while back, and found that ext3 performed pretty well compared to all of the special "high-performance" file systems. My guess is that keeping your hard drive < 95% full is more important to performance than anything else.
ext3's always worked great for me, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. You aren't going to see any amazing gains from alternative file systems, to be sure. -DMZ On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 15:09 -0400, Josiah Ritchie wrote: > 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 > > -- David Zakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
