Re: which to use: ext3, JFS, XFS, ReiserFS? [Was: new user question: debian on a Thinkpad T61]
Jimmy Wu wrote:
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
Registered Linux User #454138
ext2. Never have used any other.