View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
spinner n00b
Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 46
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: What to choose: JFS, XFS or ext3 ? |
|
|
hi,
I will format my two 200GB SATA drives that I have for storage from NTFS to something new.
These disks are for storage only and there will be 700+MB files and smaller like 4+MB files meaning (mp3 and some movies, all legally acquired )
So I was wondering what filesystem should I choose.
The first thought was for ext3 but after doing some search on the net I believe that JFS or XFS are better options.
Has anyone tried any of those two filesystems: XFS, JFS ?
I will be using kernel 2.6.x and x86_64 and x86.
Any opinions/recomendations/suggestions are welcome |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Adrien Advocate
Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2308 Location: Bretagne
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi!
XFS is just fine for both x86 and x86_64.
I'm not sure JFS is very stable yet on x86_64 though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kah n00b
Joined: 06 Jan 2003 Posts: 30 Location: Paris
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
XFS is fine for storing big files, but here they say:
Quote: | We only recommend using this filesystem on Linux systems with high-end SCSI and/or fibre channel storage and an uninterruptible power supply. Because XFS aggressively caches in-transit data in RAM, improperly designed programs (those that don't take proper precautions when writing files to disk and there are quite a few of them) can lose a good deal of data if the system goes down unexpectedly.
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tost Guru
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 506
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@Kah
I used XFS on x86 several years and never had any problems.
I have a quite normal Pc and sometimes the power was gone away
But the Filesystem wasn´t corrupted or impaired by this.
But nevertheless you´re right, XFS uses a lot of RAM this is not even the best side of it.
I would choose ext3 or ReiserFs.
They are stable and especially ReiserFs is very good for portage and the small files ..
tost |
|
Back to top |
|
|
erikm l33t
Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 634
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just saw this has been updated... hope it's helpful. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tost Guru
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 506
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great site, thanks a lot
This is really a huge and complete benchmark of almost every filesystem i´m able to use...
I bookmarked the site for the future
tost |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ShadowHawkBV Guru
Joined: 27 Mar 2004 Posts: 352
|
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've never had a problem with JFS being fast, efficient and very recoverable if hard crashes occur. I've been using it on X86_64 for around 2 years with no troubles, and on X86 for near 4 years. IBM has done good work porting JFS from AIX to OS/2 to Linux.
YMMV. _________________ This space for rent... Well maybe to give away.. Heck.. i'll pay you to take it.
Lost Linux Neophyte
Intel i7-1065G7
Intel i7-8565U
Intel Atom Cherry Trail
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955
Pure 64bit frustration |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spinner n00b
Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 46
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am thinking of going with reiserFS.
I repeat that this disk will be only for storage, movies and mp3 and nothing more..
Any more opinions are welcome |
|
Back to top |
|
|
billspork n00b
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 Posts: 30
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm using ReiserFS on a 64-bit machine. It hosts mostly music. It's worked perfectly for me since day one. I'd highly recommend it over anything else. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
6D7474 Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 135
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Belandrew n00b
Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before switching to XFS or ReiserFS, you should know you should avoid using them on normal PC hardware unless you're also using a UPS with the system monitoring it.
Here's why http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Filesystems/reiserfs.html
It's possible to lose power and not have a problem. Or it's possible to lose power and have that entire file system ruined. It just depends on the timing.
Of course, if it's a bunch of media files you don't care if you lose, rather than ones you do care about, this won't affect your choice. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lord__Astaroth Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Posts: 108 Location: Freeland, la tierra de LINUX (Madrid)
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Use XFS it have better perfomance for big files _________________ "Veo venir una dama, sonriendo hacia mi; si esa dama es la muerte, ¿quien tiene miedo a morir?
Equipo:
Athlon64 2800+@2000 Asus K8V SE DELUXE
1,5 gb Kingstom
SATA Maxtor 160 GB
XFX GeForce 6600 GT 256 DDR3
Audigy2 + 5.1 Altec Lansing |
|
Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003 Posts: 2048 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
xfs overwrittes 'damaged' files with zeros - so guaranteed data loss.
jfs is dead slow.
And portage is a zillion small files - ideal for reiserfs. _________________ Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males
I identify as a dirty penismensch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tuber Apprentice
Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 267
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
My complaint with ext3 is that I can't resize the partition while it's mounted. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
erikm l33t
Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 634
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
energyman76b wrote: | ...
And portage is a zillion small files - ideal for reiserfs. |
Sure, until after a handful of syncs, when the fragmentation is so bad the cache update takes ten minutes... @ spinner: Check out the thread 6D7474 linked in. I think a well tuned ext3 is the optimal solution so far. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chrisaw n00b
Joined: 06 Feb 2005 Posts: 20 Location: /mnt/gentoo
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
ReiserFS (3.6) is my personal favourite FS. It's the fastest i've found out there, especially on SCSI/SATA drives. My favourite feature is if you mess it up beyond all belief it always seems to find a way to repair its self from a LiveCD (worst case scenario ) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rteichmann n00b
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tost wrote: | Great site, thanks a lot
This is really a huge and complete benchmark of almost every filesystem i´m able to use...
I bookmarked the site for the future
tost |
Sadly he's using an ancient CPU for his tests, makes the results meaningless for many people. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrewd18 Guru
Joined: 11 Apr 2004 Posts: 364 Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tost Guru
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 506
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My biggest fear is that my reiserfs partition gets fragemented as you read in many postings here
But until now it´s working fast and secure every day ..
tost |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dweigert Guru
Joined: 04 Oct 2002 Posts: 369 Location: Somerset, NJ USA
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the very nicesct features of XFS is the "realtime" feature. This lets you stream data off of the disks in an isochronys manner. It is ideal for media playback by the way. I used to use it under Irix for that very reason.
Dan _________________ "Always remember to mount a scratch monkey..." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spinner n00b
Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 46
|
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any proposal for the reiserfs block size for mp3 and movies ?
I believe it should be 2K to save free space but any ideas are welcome.
reiserfs has fragmentation issues ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kyphros n00b
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 10
|
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I keep two TB of music and movies on XFS. It works very well for streaming over my network, and coming from SGI I trust it more than ReiserFS. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
longship Apprentice
Joined: 04 Jun 2005 Posts: 294 Location: Ontario, CA USA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: Re: What to choose: JFS, XFS or ext3 ? |
|
|
spinner wrote: | hi,
I will format my two 200GB SATA drives that I have for storage from NTFS to something new.
These disks are for storage only and there will be 700+MB files and smaller like 4+MB files meaning (mp3 and some movies, all legally acquired )
So I was wondering what filesystem should I choose.
The first thought was for ext3 but after doing some search on the net I believe that JFS or XFS are better options.
Has anyone tried any of those two filesystems: XFS, JFS ?
I will be using kernel 2.6.x and x86_64 and x86.
Any opinions/recomendations/suggestions are welcome |
If you use ext3 you can gain some performance with
"mke2fs -j -O dir_index /dev/<part>"
That adds an indexed directorty structure. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
deluge Apprentice
Joined: 28 Jan 2004 Posts: 157
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
erikm l33t
Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 634
|
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Too funny. That's the second double link in this thread. Don't you people read before posting? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|