which filesystem do you use ?

[Carpo]

im not asking which is best im just trying to make up my mind on which fs to use based on different strengths and weaknesses, i have always been tought to use ext2 due to its undelete funtion, where as journeled systems do not have this and if all goes tits up and the journel is corrupted you lose everything, but i have found when working with large files 1gb+ on a ext2 that deleting takes a little bit to complete - even if it was 4 dvd9s i had riped to hdd to test out a few programs, ext3 seemed to be a smidge faster, reiserfs was slow (yes i know its geared more toward little files - 4k) and i have been warned away from jfs/xfs as these are so called not mature.

[Sharktooth]

im a fan of reiser4

[nm]

<snip> and i have been warned away from jfs/xfs as these are so called not mature.
Well, they may not be suitable for every situation, but I'm sure you can trust on both at least as much as on ext2/3. To quote the Wikipedia article on XFS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS):
XFS is the oldest journaling file system available for UNIX systems, and has a mature, stable and well-debugged codebase. Development of XFS was started by Silicon Graphics, in 1993, with first deployment being seen on IRIX 5.3 in 1994. The filesystem was released under the GNU General Public License in May 2000, and ported to Linux, with the first distribution support appearing in 2001/2002. It is available in almost all Linux distributions today.

[Carpo]

i meant they say its nat mature under linux and its one of the biggest parts of the kernel if i remember rightly - would try and quote the page but it escapes me atm

also i should have made ext2/3 seperate options in the poll ;p

[xxxyzzzz]

While I do not have much experience with reiserfs 4, I am a huge fan of reiserfs 3.

Cons:
It requires a little more CPU overhead, but that is negligible nowadays unless you are running a Pentium II or older machine.

It can be a little more difficult to recover data on a reiserfs filesystem compared to other 'block'ing type filesystems

Pros:

Reiserfs saves a lot of space because it does not use 'blocks' like many filesystems do (e.g. NTFS). For instance, if you have a lot of little files on an ext3 filesystem with block (or inode) size of 4K, then every little text file less than that will take up 4K. Reiser does not do this; its journal keeps track of the files with out the block size overhead. A Linux system tends to have lots and lots of little files.

Reiserfs 3 has always been much faster on the many Linux systems I have used/admin'ed. It definately gets the performance out your hardware. (You can add even more performance by tweeking your mounts on any filesystem - e.g. adding 'noatime' in the fstab). When openSUSE 10.2 switched to ext3 from reiserfs as the default filesystem, I thought I would give it a try since I hadn't in years. I was unfortunately disappointed by slower read/writes that I got. (Don't get me wrong, ext3 is a very good filesystem with very good stability and compatibility).

Reiser is VERY good at recovering itself if the system goes down. I have been very impressed with the effeciency and accuracy of the journal to repair itself.


Well, my choice is reiserfs 3. Or ext2 for your 20 MB boot partition :)

Z

[Shinigami-Sama]

on linux, ext2(boot) reiser( /var/log -sometimes ) ext3 everything else

on solaris
UFS /
ZFS /*

I don't use solaris enough see a big difference in FS types

[Hellworm]

jfs. Very low cpu requirements, fast, never failed me.

[roynux]

from jfs/xfs as these are so called not mature

It was not mature 5 years ago. :devil:
The problem with Internet is that some pages are not very up-to-date.

I have this schema:
/boot - Ext3 - 128Mb
SWAP - 1Gb
/ - Ext3 - 8Gb
/home - XFS - (rest of disk 50Gb)

No problem since I bought my last computer 2 years ago.
I use Ubuntu on it (I have used gentoo and other distro before but on another computer).

[Sharktooth]

FYI: http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz
JFS seems to be the fastest...

[echo]

xfs here for / and /home, very fast and no problems at all.

[Carpo]

through bad experience of always wanting the best/greatest/fastest version of every prog on windows and then causing me issues i think im more than likely gonna go the old fogies route and use the slow/tried/tested route ;) as i have found out just because something is the fastest dont make it the best :)

[Sharktooth]

This is the reason why i chosen ReiserFS.
Once i lost some important data (was using ext2) and after that happened i decided to switch to a journalized FS (ext3) since it is more secure. It happened again and i decided to drop ext3 too coz when searching the web for data recovery solutions i read in different places ext3 was having the same data loss problems...
however at that time NASes werent so cheap and i needed to access the data from windows too (installed on the same machine) but couldnt write to NTFS from linux...
The easiest way was to make a reiserFS partition since there were working reiserFS utilities for windows to read and write files. The other filesystems weren't supported at all by windows, so i had no choice, but i no longer had data loss problems since i used reiser...

[xxxyzzzz]

I will have to admit that reiserfs3 is a little slow at deleting files, especially ones in the GB range.

But to agree with Sharktooth, I have not had data loss problems using reiserfs3. Unless you count the shift-delete combo I am fond of on the wrong files....

Z

[shevegen]

I think the best filesystems are those that are reasonable fast and do not annoy the users in any way... the best ones should not be noticable :)

[Carpo]

ok so now that everyone is saying ext3 resierfs i have to decide but after having some issues with resierfs before im more geared to go with ext2/3