On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ron Johnson
<ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
On 04/24/2010 12:53 PM, B. Alexander wrote:
Hi,
I have a question on filesystems. Back in the day, I started using
reiser3. It was faster than ext3, and it could be extended without
umounting the filesystem (which has since been fixed in ext3), plus,
unlike any filesystem I have encountered, it could be reduced in size.
Well, now reiser3 is very long in the tooth, reiser4 will probably never
go anywhere, so I'm wondering what filesystems are recommended. Last I
heard, ext4 is stablizing, but it had problems with filesystem
corruption, though that was mid-fall last year, IIRC.
So now, I would like to slowly start replacing my reiser3 partitions
with...something else. There are two options, the old standards, e.g.
ext3/4, xfs, etc, and then there are a slew of new filesystems, such as
nilfs2, btrfs and exofs.
I'm talking about a range of machines, from workstations to servers to
NFS and storage servers with multi-terabyte disks, and a backup server
with several hundred gigs of backups.
Does anyone have suggestions and practical experience with the pros and
cons of the various filesystems?
Thats cool. What about Lots of Little Files? That was another of the draws of reiser3. I have a space I mount on /media/archive, which has everything from mp3/oggs and movies, to books to a bunch of tiny files. This will probably be the first victim for the xfs test partition.
nilfs2, btrfs and exofs are *definitely* still beta or even alpha.
xfs and ext[34] can all be extended. For production servers with a working UPS, I'd go with ext3 for / & /boot and xfs (since it hates sudden power outages) for the "/data" directories. For production workstations, I'd stick with the standby ext3 for / & /boot and ext3 or xfs for /home and "/data" (depending on the workload).
Define "hates sudden power outages"...Is it recoverable?
Thanks for the info, Ron,
--b