Which file system you are using and why?

[legolas_w]

I am wondering between all of these file systems which ones you are using in your desktop computer and which one for your servers. which one has better list of features when we compare it with NTFS or WinFS?

Thank you for sharing your thought.

[Polygon]

i use ext3 cause it the default and it works

[gnomeuser]

ext4, it's stable and reasonable speedy. Waiting for online defragmentation support though. Eventually it will be replaced with btrfs but I want the data format to stabilize first.

[cardinals_fan]

EXT3 on my Fedora partition, ReiserFS on my Slackware partition and /home.

EXT3 because that's all the Fedora live CD offered, ReiserFS because it performs almost as well as JFS but is safer in an area with lots of power outages.

[legolas_w]

I heard that EXT3 is not recoverable like NTFS, is it the same for other file systems and the newly developed EXT4?

Thanks

[binbash]

ext3 because it is stable, however i am planning to move ext4 soon

[Polygon]

I heard that EXT3 is not recoverable like NTFS, is it the same for other file systems and the newly developed EXT4?

Thanks

define recoverable? it has a journal so if you have a power outage the filesystem wont be corrupted or anything......

[urukrama]

ext3, because it does what I need and because I haven't yet found the interest to explore the benefits of the other file sytems.

[insane_alien]

ext3, will switch to ext4 when ubuntu supports it in a stable version and can boot from it. basically i'll stick with defaults.

reasons for sticking with defaults
1/ don't need to think about it,
2/ i don't really care if it makes my system a few microseconds quicker at reading a file.
3/ its what i already have, changing it would take too much time.

[richg]

I install Ubuntu on a drive right out of the box. I use whatever Ubuntu installs. Done this for five years with NO issues.

Rich

[Barrucadu]

JFS, because it fscks incredibly quickly. I used ReiserFS for a while because it is fast when working with lots of small files, but it takes an age to fsck (also, calling it "MurderFS" is just immature, using a filesystem written by a murderer doesn't make *you* a murderer).

[y6FgBn)~v]

i use ext3 cause it the default and it works

+1

[|eafhound]

Reiser, because i like to go fast

[keith.newell]

Ext3 for now, ext4 when ubuntu officially supports it.

[markp1989]

im just using ext3, on most machines


i use ext2 on my eee because i heard that it doesnt write to the SSD as much because of the lack of journal

[$USER]

ext3

the performance differences arent enough for me to care, especially when I got 700MB iso's sitting right next to tiny config files on the same partition.

[Slug71]

Ext4, because its in Jaunty which im using and it should be tested. Boots fine and rock solid so far.
Also boots quicker than Ext3.

[jimi_hendrix]

ext3 because its the only one i know...ext4 on my jaunty install

[legolas_w]

Wow, guys can someone let me know why they call it murderFS?
I saw in the wikipedia that it says: Reiser4 and ReiserFS "Murders your wife" :lolflag:

What is the story behind it?

See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_file_systems&oldid=209063556#Features

[PurposeOfReason]

Wow, guys can someone let me know why they call it murderFS?
I saw in the wikipedia that it says: Reiser4 and ReiserFS "Murders your wife" :lolflag:

What is the story behind it?

See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_file_systems&oldid=209063556#Features
Read 8 posts up.

I use ext3 though in my server I'm working on I'll be doing something else I'm thinking.

[-grubby]

Ext3 because it's stable, and I don't care enough about speed to have an unstable file system

[kavon89]

define recoverable? it has a journal so if you have a power outage the filesystem wont be corrupted or anything......

Not always true, depends on how it journals:


JFS is a Journaling Filesystem. Rather than adding Journaling as an add-on like ext3, Journaling was implemented from the start. The journal is fixed at 32MB. JFS journals metadata only, which means metadata will remain consistent but user files may be corrupted after a crash or power loss. JFS' Journaling is similar to XFS where it only journals parts of the Inode.

ext3 for me, and I'll be quick to adopt ext4. I was going to try ReiserFS only because it got publicity when the developer was locked up.

[RATM_Owns]

ext4 for /home
reiserfs for /

[legolas_w]

Unbelievable, I read the Hans Reiser story and I should say that it was the most shocking things that I have read in 2009.
How can possible a successful guy like him kill someone else :O Unbelievable and sad.

[samjh]

I made a similar thread a while back: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=854129

For me, the choice is JFS and Ext3. JFS because it is fast and very crash-resistant. Ext3 because of its popular support as the default file system of most Linux distributions.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I use ext3 as it seems stable

[phrostbyte]

ext3 because it's the default :p

[ghindo]

I use ext3 because it's the default Ubuntu filesystem and I haven't found any compelling reasons to switch to any other filesystem.

[jrusso2]

I use JFS, ext2,3 have both managed to destroy my installs a number of times when the system lost power and even Linux has been looking for a replacement.

Reiser I used to use but with Hans in prison, he was its genius.

XFS has some major issues but I still use it for some things just not root.

[jimi_hendrix]

whats the advantage to using XFS JFS or ResierFS over ext3?

[cardinals_fan]

whats the advantage to using XFS JFS or ResierFS over ext3?
JFS and ReiserFS usually perform better.

[SomeGuyDude]

XFS here, it's pretty snappy and responsive. I'd like to try another on my next install.

[Frak]

I use XFS.

[mips]

XFS here, it's pretty snappy and responsive. I'd like to try another on my next install.

XFS feels slow on my laptop as it experienes a lot of disk i/o. I need to start implementing some tweaks to see if I can impreove performance.

[Liviu-Theodor]

For now, ext3 for Ubuntu, ext2 for Fedora servers, and NTFS for Windows. The Fedora serveres are preinstalled, it was not me who installed them, and ext3 or NTFS were the best available when I installed the OS on the computers.

[uberdonkey5]

I use ext3, but really I'd prefer to use something faster like Resier when I reinstall. However I am PETRIFIED of reinstalling (I have dual boot still).Everything is just peachy on my computer now and if I reinstall I hate to go through all the codecs, prefered packages, firefox plugins etc, such a waste of time.

My dream is to get rid of my dual boot, and use Pinnacle Studio through virtual box on ubuntu, but running faster than I can in windows.

(how do different file systems affect virtualisation???)

[Archmage]

which one has better list of features when we compare it with NTFS or WinFS?

Kindly note that Microsoft decided to drop WinFS. Therefore they have no features at all. Therefore all other filesystem are better than WinFS. Even in Windows they are using NTFS instead of a non-existing filesystem.

[mips]

(how do different file systems affect virtualisation???)

I had a WinXP install in Virtualbox a while back and the performance of WinXP for me 'felt' faster than a normal clean hd install. Only way to find out for yourself is to test it.

[jrusso2]

Ext 2 was the worst. If you ever lost power you lost data that was it. If you were lucky you didn't lose the whole file system. I was so glad when we started having alternatives.

[SomeGuyDude]

XFS feels slow on my laptop as it experienes a lot of disk i/o. I need to start implementing some tweaks to see if I can impreove performance.

Hm. I hadn't noticed any of that. But, like I said, I'm really jazzed on testing out Reiser next.

[Trail]

EXT3 on / and ~ (lots of small files where XFS is slow), XFS on /media/* (lots of big files, better performance).

[Archmage]

I use ext3, but really I'd prefer to use something faster like Resier when I reinstall. However I am PETRIFIED of reinstalling (I have dual boot still).Everything is just peachy on my computer now and if I reinstall I hate to go through all the codecs, prefered packages, firefox plugins etc, such a waste of time.

The next Ubuntu release should support ext4. Maybe you can than convert all your ext3 to ext4 if you dare.

[adamlau]

XFS. Because I have a large media collection and because the filesystem is tuneable, easy to manage (through xfprogs) and offers online defragmentation.

[RudolfMDLT]

ext3, will switch to ext4 when ubuntu supports it in a stable version and can boot from it. Basically i'll stick with defaults.

Reasons for sticking with defaults
1/ don't need to think about it,
2/ i don't really care if it makes my system a few microseconds quicker at reading a file.
3/ its what i already have, changing it would take too much time.

+1 :)