Going through all this (and it's slightly out-of-date now, admittedly...) shows that jfs is the fastest, technically. But ReiserFS looks more stable if somewhat slower. ext3 is the most stable, but slow as a slow thing overall.
I'd put my Edgy partion on jfs, and I already run my ReiserFS partition with Dapper.
Don't know how slow ext3 would be I've never used Dapper on ext3...
I see. Next thing you know someone comes along and claims XFS without a doubt improves his audio and video quality.If everyone kept there mouth shut and only spoke if they had concrete graphical/statistical data to support everything said here in the forums, it would be a lot smaller and a lot less exciting.
Either provide dependable data or don’t bother.
Last edited by hugmenot; August 31st, 2006 at 01:42 PM.
I'm using XFS now, it's not that much faster than reiserfs, I do notice the faster load times for large files like /bin will load alot quicker than reiserfs. I just think it's a matter of choice and what you use your system for, also if you use older linux(DSL,...) some don't have XFS support so you'll be cut off from your files. I've tried the hard power down with things running and i had no problems wth loss, she just started right up. I noticed it runs 3 daemons all the time that logs,checks data, i'm not sure what the last on does, i think it's a buffer(xfslogd,xfsdatad,xfsbufd). Also i see in top that there are 4 zombies, i don't get that with reiserfs. I only just installed so i know it's not something malicious. I've had no problems so far so only time will tell.
Last edited by kerry_s; October 29th, 2006 at 08:40 AM.
This was a good read:
For trying to tell me what to do...kiss my a##. See if you can dig up some stats on that. Tired of people like yourself thinking your someone because of a forum. Let people be and quit trying to be a tyrant. We can take this conversation to private messaging if you want. No problem there. Got some things I'd like to tell you just between, so the forums stay clean. So I'll meet you there kitten.......
Thanks for the note on XFS. I've tried it, but I'm sticking with ext3 because I work with older machines and I feel the lower CPU strain makes up for the slower structure.
Thanks for that. That's the kind of hard numbers and direct explanation a lot of people look for. Cheers!Originally Posted by bluenova
Ubuntu user #7247 :: Linux user #409907
Please remember the forum policy and that it is expected that all users of these forums will conduct themselves with politeness and respect...even when you are frustrated.
I'll not do anything for the moment to give a chance to this thread and by respect to all the users who have posted useful informations and contributed to this thread.
Further posts which break the the forum policy will be move to the jail and infraction points will be issued.
I used to have a file server that used ReiserFS. It was an old 200MHz machine with 128MB RAM, a 2.0GB main HD (split with 1.5GB for the OS and .5GB for swap) and a 20.0GB shared drive for the network, a 10/100 Ethernet card, and a barebones Slackware install with only Samba and Webmin.
It wasn't the fastest thing, of course, but transfer rates stayed around 1.5-1.7MB/s (in terms of Mb/s this is about 12-14Mb/s) which certainly isn't fast but is a lot faster than I expected from such an old machine, and it's still great for small files.
From what I unserstand this is not an easy task the way it is in windows to go from FAT32 to NTFS. Apparantly you need to create a new partition with the FS you desire and then migrate the data over. This can be done quickly with a LiveCD.so , how do i convert my existing ext3 to XFS ?