The Filesystem choice thread

lunatc · Last edited by lunatc on Mon May 13, 2002 8:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

I am a rc6-upgraded-to-1.1a Gentoo user. When I first installed my (lovely) Gentoo system I decided to make XFS as my default, because reading the install doc, it seems to me a solid storage solution.
But recently, I've observed in the forums that has many problems to make it work on the new kernel releases. So...

Why shoud I keep working on XFS? It could be a good filesystem but if it's future integration on then kernel tree it's such a problematic thing like it seems to be now, why not use a more "kernel-compliant" filesystem like ext3 or Reiserfs? :roll:

Meanwhile, I still keep on using my old good 2.4.17-r5 "XFS'able" kernel

EDIT: Was "recommend XFS?" --pjp

leaf · n00b Joined: 06 May 2002 Posts: 10 Location: England

The latest gentoo kernel sources have the XFS code included.

vert · Posted: Fri May 10, 2002 3:20 pm Post subject:

I use XFS both on my personal Gentoo system and a Debian server. Never had any problems with it on either and gives excellent performance (also with very full disks :wink:

). So I will stick with XFS.

arkane · l33t Joined: 30 Apr 2002 Posts: 918 Location: Phoenix, AZ

I have to say the *ONLY* reason I really stopped using XFS was because it could not shrink. It stressed me out to jump "backwards" to reiserfs and ext3, but it's something I had to do.
(running LVM, and I do resize them occasionally.. I've done it twice so far)

Malakin · Posted: Sat May 11, 2002 1:59 am Post subject:

This poll would be more usefull if it was worded like this:

Guest

I tried XFS when I first installed Gentoo about 4-5 months ago. I read Drobbins install document and he seemed to be really keen on it, so I thought I'd try it instead of EXT3. Anyhow, I have a Via KT266A chipset with onboard UDMA100 IDE. Whenever I would write a lot of data to the disk at once and fill up my cache in memory, after about 30 minutes or so of heavy disk access the i/o would stop, and my machine would be hung waiting for I/O. It was the most bizarre thing, because you could actually login to a console, and it would let you type in your username and password, but as soon as the disk drive had to read the shadow file to authenticate you, you would never get past that point, because the whole computer was hung waiting for I/O. I tried every option I could think of, at first I thought it was a hardware issue with IRQ sharing or some other such nonsense, but eventually I switched to ReiserFS and all of my problems went away.

I haven't had one lockup since, and I even tried going back to XFS about a month ago hoping that maybe the patches had caught up to it, but alas, it's still just as buggy as ever on a Via chipset (Epox 8KHA+ mobo in case you're curious). I have no doubt that it's great on some people's systems, but Reiser has actually worked flawlessly for me, and it's very fast. I don't know why so many people knock it. Reiser and EXT3 are the only 2 Linux filesystems worth knowing about, oh and maybe EXT2 just for speed. There are way too many bleading edge filesystems that are too buggy to trust your data to. I don't want to have to rely on a kernel patch just to read my filesystem. That's bad...

JefP@@ · Posted: Sat May 11, 2002 4:23 pm Post subject:

XFS is working great here !!

I've used several other filesystems, and I must say, xfs appears best to me

sven · Apprentice Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 274

I recently switched from ReiserFS to XFS because I had lots of problems with ReiserFS ... losing data, system crashes etc. I have no problems since using XFS!

AutoBot · l33t Joined: 22 Apr 2002 Posts: 968 Location: Usually Out

I used XFS on Gentoo and Debian, I must say it is a nice filesystem and I never lost any data. But for a general linux desktop it seems ext3 or ReiserFS to be the wise choice, but I say use what you like and what serves your purpose be it XFS or even JFS

_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.

dacoval · n00b Joined: 17 Apr 2002 Posts: 6 Location: Qld, Australia

When i started using Gentoo, I switched from Ext3 too XFS, and havent looked back. Its been fantastic, both on my desktops, and now on my servers. w00t for XFS!

dArkMaGE · Apprentice Joined: 20 Apr 2002 Posts: 152

does anyone know of any links to actual data (benchmarks etc.) on the performance of ext3 xfs reiserfs?

AutoBot · l33t Joined: 22 Apr 2002 Posts: 968 Location: Usually Out

This is where I got all my information.

http://www.google.com/search?q=xfs%20vs%20ext3&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Google-ized

_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.

Guest · Posted: Mon May 13, 2002 10:10 am Post subject: convert

Right now i use ext3
Can i convert to XFS?
I mean without formating the HD :-)

AutoBot · l33t Joined: 22 Apr 2002 Posts: 968 Location: Usually Out

No you will have to backup and format to xfs.
_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.

temperanza · Guest

Which JFS do you use? I've been using XFS, but I'm wondering if the gentoo optimized kernel and the ruggedness of ext3 are worth a swiitch. And there's people who like reiserfs, even with these reports of data corruption. Feedback might help me choose.

Target · Apprentice Joined: 25 Apr 2002 Posts: 200

ext2 = poo
ext3 = poo
reiserfs = poo
xfs = poo

That said, xfs is probably the least stinky, though you can't use the kernel-preempt patch with it. I use ext3 because it doesn't put my data through a thresher and lets me use the preempt patch.

eivinn · Apprentice Joined: 10 Jul 2002 Posts: 219 Location: Norway

Hi,

I have now got internet back up and am planning to install Gentoo 1.4rc1.
Therefore I am wondering if it's best to use Ext3 or XFS. I am the "only" real user of the computer and use it for developing C++, Java programs and also a bit of gaming (GF4). What is faster, what is more reliable?

Thanks for any short explanation :roll:

Bushmann · Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:49 am Post subject: XFS

XFS is faster, no doubt. About reliability, don't know, never had any problem with my XFS partitions.
But, at least with the current versions, you need a special kernel version. (Either xfs-sources or gentoo r7, r8/r9 don't work)

craftyc · Guru Joined: 23 May 2002 Posts: 443 Location: Behind You.

I believe that the -r10 has the xfs patch.

From the ebuild

eivinn · Apprentice Joined: 10 Jul 2002 Posts: 219 Location: Norway

This means that if I favour gentoo-sources, I would prefer Ext3 as well for now?

I haven't had any problems with either XFS or Ext3, but wonder if any is the better choice :wink:

jondkent · Apprentice Joined: 26 Jul 2002 Posts: 289 Location: London

Its seems, from looking at the latest install doc, that XFS has fallen out of favour with the Gentoo developers because of reported corruption issues. ext3 is now the favoured fs type.

That said I've been using XFS for quite a while and have had no problems with it, and XFS patches are available for all of the recent kernel sources.

For a easy life use ext3 as that will be built into the stock Gentoo kernel, for a bit of fun use XFS.

Choices, love 'em

Jon

phong · Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 1:20 pm Post subject:

I'd probably choose XFS over ext3 unless you want backwards compatability. However, have you considered ReiserFS?
_________________
"An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head."
-- Eric Hoffer

mrchuckles · Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 1:25 pm Post subject:

ReiserFS is much faster than Ext3, and some would argue even as stable. Yes, there have been past issues of data corruption, but these issues have been ironed out for the most part. I've been using ReiserFS on my home system for at least 6 months with no problems. I also have a Squid server at work using ReiserFS for the cache partition, and it hums along quite nicely.

XFS is nice, but it's a bitch to get working with the low-latency kernel patch, and offers no real benefits over ReiserFS for most purposes.

taskara · Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 1:29 pm Post subject:

for speed choose other than ext2 / 3
for reliability, definately ext3

eivinn · Apprentice Joined: 10 Jul 2002 Posts: 219 Location: Norway

With speed in mind. Would I see a difference when playing UT2003 or any games with larger textures?

I think I'll go for the slower, and hopefully as reliable as possible, Ext3 for now.