Re: XFS, EXT3 or some other?
Hemlock wrote:
> Hello,
> Seeking some advice on which filesystem to use.
> I've been primarlity an ext3 user, because thats all I've really
> ever known of, but would consider trying something else.
> Plus, never used anything other than 32bit Debian since slink.
>
> I've read some articles googling for xfs, ext3 and jfs and such.
> Leaning towards xfs maybe?
>
> This will be for a AMD64 sarge box used as a file, web, email and proxy
> server. Also running software raid.
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
>
I can't much comment on the different options available as I've moved
from ext3 to jfs recently (say, for the last 6 months).
My primary reason from switching away from ext3 were the long fsck's on
boot after a disatrous crash or power outage. I then researched what I
could between ext3, xfs, jfs, and reiser. Here's what I found (this is
all from memory and personal opinion).
ext3: not optimized in many ways compared to the other journaling file
systems available, long periods of recovery and mild corruption, though
on a whole, it has a good reputation on data integrity. And the issues
I've mentioned seem to be worked on in more recent kernel revisions.
XFS: painful in some ways (can't remember specifics, but in one case you
can thoroughly hose your filesystem) though, xfs was one of the choices
I seriously looked at, I don't remember the specifics, but such small
things such as long time to remove files, and other minor issues such as
CPU utilization. Though I'd try this one next if jfs lets me down.
jfs: at the time it seemed to be the best choice I had. The filesystem
was reported to be rock-solid and quick-enough (tm), though not as fast
as XFS, though over XFS it had the advantage of low CPU utilization.
I have a couple of things that I consider minor annoyances with jfs.
Firstly, I don't know if it's a specific debian issue or a real problem
with jfs, but a while back one of my amd64 boxes loved locking up
because of certain issues with the onboard sensors. When it did, only a
hard power-cycle would get the machine out of its' frozen state. On
boot, jfs would just simply state that the filesystem is clean. After a
few weeks I discovered that each reboot further corrupted my filesystem.
On recovery, half my hard drive was thrown in the lost+found. What jfs
wasn't doing was forcing an integrity check (-f) fsck on boot. This
could be a jfs specific issue, or simply a debian problem, I don't know.
There doesn't seem to be a flag that can be set on boot to make sure a
total check is made (directory and file structures). The other problem
is that there's no fine-grained control over block sizes or allocations
(things you'd find say.. in tune2fs for ext3).
Anyway, ignoring those (minor/major flaws?), jfs has been perfect, it's
fast, and very stable imo, I've noticed a small increase in performance,
but nothing I can quantify. (maybe just a placebo effect?)
reiserfs: Seems that there's a whole stigma with this whole project as
being unstable, and run by one person who's more interested in the
elitist group and views of his users (this could be a good thing).
Everywhere I looked for fs comparisons, reiser had a terrible
reputation. Though there are staunch supporters out there for this
filesystem, I cannot knock it, mainly because I know almost nothing of
it, since I never plan on trying it.
Reply to: