The right filesystem for the right files???

syadnom · Guru Joined: 09 May 2002 Posts: 531

i have noticed a lot of people claiming that a certain file system is better for this or that. for instance i have read that people consider reiserfs the best for small files but some dont really trust it for this root filesystem.....and XFS is better for larger files...and ext3 is just all around good..

anyone have any good comments about this? about which filesystem is best for what and why that is so?...

also, has anyone experimented with using multiple file systems for certian system directories? for instance:

/usr/portage should be the FS with the fastest small file access speed because the portage system has so many small files...

and /usr/src/ should be similar because of the many many files in the kernel source,

but /home could be XFS or ext3 because people download larger items(multiple megabyte) often..

gimme your thoughts and your preferences on this...

right now i run the following:
/home is XFS
/usr is ReaserFS
/boot is ext3
i have a suse install on another partition:
/suse (hda3) is ext3 becuase suse8 prefered it and i wasn't willing to argue

i also have:
/network/samba and
/network/nfs for network drives

and /fat32 which is...duh - fat32/vfat

tomte · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 08 May 2002 Posts: 122

ext3 is stable (AFAIK) but slow compared to every other journaling file system; xfs as well as jfs didn't work with my kernel config (xfs lost data, jfs usage resulted in kernel panics) I'm happy with reiserfs now. using it on every machine (regardless of the distro used) since well over two years without problems, just gave the others a try after installing gentoo.
the problems may well arise out of uncommon kernel configurations, that are nevertheless needed to get all hardware to work with high-memory support and the preemption-patch enabled :-)

regards,
tom

fghellar · Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2002 4:14 am Post subject:

You may be interested in the "Advanced filesystem implementor's guide", by Daniel Robbins. Check the Articles section at gentoo.org.
_________________
| www.gentoo.org | www.tldp.org | www.google.com |

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

I have used ReiserFS, ext3, and XFS on gentoo and for all purposes I like XFS but unfortunately it causes the kernel to have somewhat more bulk (200Kb+) and doesn't function properly with preempt enabled (usually).

ReiserFS has been good to me so far, is light on the kernel, and is fast for most things.

Ext3 is slow, I have had corruption (gentoo recue disk saves the day), and once I lost my journal for no apparent reason.

Note: When I talk about bulk, it isn't because of ram but because my kernel needs to fit on a bootdisk along with syslinux. I'm sure some will disagree with what I said and that is ok, one was just giving output on ones experience with journaling filesystems.
_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.

syadnom · Guru Joined: 09 May 2002 Posts: 531

ok, so XFS is not really good with pre-emptive kernel
and ext3 is slower than grandma
ReiserFS is good but in other forums i have read about some issues with it and the 2.4.19 kernels

note: ihave not had any issues with XFS and pre-emptive kernel that i know of, i dont think i have had any dataloss..

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

Lol, IMHO thats about it

_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.

klieber · Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2002 12:12 pm Post subject:

Ask six different linux users what file types you should use and you'll get six different answers. A lot of it is very subjective and dependent on your particular needs. (i.e. speed vs. stability vs. simplicity)

Try them all out -- see which one floats your boat the best.

--kurt
_________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected

pjp · Administrator Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20498

On a day to day use system for ordinary tasks, is speed a noticeable issue?
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo?

klieber · Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2002 6:30 pm Post subject:

I would say no. I use ext3 for all my stuff. I've tried reiser and XFS, but I always come back to ext3 simply because it's easier and I don't notice all that big of a speed difference.

Now, after I post this, about 419 other people are going to post about how XFS made their this much faster and reiserfs made their system that much faster, so again, it's all a very subjective thing that depends on your particular needs.

--kurt
_________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected

syadnom · Guru Joined: 09 May 2002 Posts: 531

im most interested in which file system to put which type of files on. i know fat32 and ext2 are horribly slow for putting mp3s on. as in it take longer to ls a directory or find a file on them. and im also interested in improving response time of the file system for certain tasks,

klieber · Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2002 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: ...........

syadnom · Guru Joined: 09 May 2002 Posts: 531

i can feel a noticable difference when using ext2 or 3. in fact a google search showed my that ext2 and 3 have to noticable performance difference as ext3 is just ext2 with a journal. but i dont feel that this is a problem for some directories like /boot....which doesnt need to be blazing fast as it just has a couple config files and the kernel... but my /usr/portage directory needs to be faster so that emerge doesnt take so dang long to write files to..

why is their not a good database file system?? is it possible to mount a database as a directory?

so a search would just look in the database index which is very small and searches would be REALLY fast, small file access can be amazingly fast in some SQL benchmarks..

how about something like
/boot is a real ext3 partition
/root is a real reiserfs partition
but /lib /home /usr are all just a mounted database?

how good is the support for the BFS(be file system)? which is a fairly fast databased file system, of cource a file system tools package would need included because most of the file services in beos were managed by tracker...

syadnom · Guru Joined: 09 May 2002 Posts: 531

BFS should have been BeFS, and i notice that it is in experimental stages and doesnt include any of the advanced features...

pjp · Administrator Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20498

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

Really the matter of ReiserFS and XFS being faster than ext3 isn't subjective, it is a proven fact with benchmarks and documentation.

You can find a really good read on filesystems here:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fs7/?open&t=grl
_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.

pjp · Administrator Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20498

I don't think anyone was disputing benchmarks, but rather it didn't "feel" faster.
What you do with the fs is probably the most important factor.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo?

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

Ahh I understand that, was just throwing some wood in the fire so to speak.
_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.

mksoft · l33t Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 844

Those using ext3 (I use XFS) they can enhance the fs performance by telling it to journal only metadata and not the data itself (as XFS and reiser do it).

The default option is to journal both which is safer but hurts performance. You can refer to LinuxToday article describing ext3. Check the speed section.
_________________
There's someone in my head but it's not me - Pink Floyd

fghellar · Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2002 4:00 am Post subject:

The default for ext3 is metadata journaling only (data=ordered mode). I personally use metadata and data journaling (data=journal mode), and am pretty satisfied...
_________________
| www.gentoo.org | www.tldp.org | www.google.com |

mksoft · l33t Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 844

I meant use data=writeback. From RedHat whitepaper :

DArtagnan · Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2002 7:14 am Post subject:

mksoft · l33t Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 844

DArtagnan · Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2002 8:08 am Post subject:

mksoft · l33t Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 844

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

I would just run ext2 instead of trying to make ext3 run faster at the cost of security.
_________________
This message self destructed a long time ago.