VectorLinux
April 19, 2014, 12:44:32 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Poll
Question: What filesystem do you use for linux root partition?
ext2
ext3
ext4
reiserfs
reiser4
jfs
xfs
other

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: What filesystem do you use for linux root partition?  (Read 5163 times)
Witek Mozga
Vectorite
***
Posts: 113



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2008, 01:04:03 pm »

No vote for JFS so far. Seems to be forgotten but as I said before it looks best in the cited benchmarks.
Logged

caitlyn
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2839



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2008, 07:08:14 pm »

I used to do consulting for <inset name of large corporate type distro maker here> and our customers that really needed high end file system performance chose xfs even though we didn't officially support it.  Despite the benchmarks cited it tested as by far the fastest (yes, faster than jfs) and it is 100% reliable.  I have had data corruption problems with reiserfs.  Never had any with xfs. 

grub doesn't support ext4 at this time, nor does it support ext3 with the new, larger default inode size.  I've used lilo with xfs and I have had zero problems to date.
Logged

eMachines EL-1300G desktop, 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e CPU, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6150 SE video
VLocity Linux 7.0-rc1

HP Mini 110 netbook, 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 2GB RAM, Intel 950 video
VL 7.0 Light
MikeCindi
Tester
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1071


« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2008, 08:22:08 pm »

No vote for JFS so far. Seems to be forgotten but as I said before it looks best in the cited benchmarks.
Well, since you're asking on a VL forum where JFS is not offered during setup then you probably won't get any with JFS as root. VL formats the root partition during setup to one of the four default choices (ext2, ext3, reiserfs, or XFS). It would be a beyond the typical user to bypass that and manually setup VL. If JFS is added to that default set as an option perhaps more would use it.
Logged

The plans of the diligent lead to profit...Pro. 21:5
VL64 7.1b3                                     RLU 486143
wcs
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1144


« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2008, 07:07:19 am »

I just tried to install VL standard with XFS... The installation took a lot longer than with reiser.
Removing small files also seemed to incur a delay.
Maybe just my imagination, but it felt less responsive than with reiser... strange, given the good impressions about xfs above.
Logged
nightflier
Administrator
Vectorian
*****
Posts: 3941



« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2008, 08:16:09 am »

I use XFS, 5.8 SOHO and LILO. No problems. Have not done any performance testing, nor have I noticed any discernable difference from ReiserFS.
Logged
caitlyn
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2839



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2008, 10:25:58 am »

You won't notice the difference between XFS and ReiserFS doing casual computing.  <Insert name of Hollywood animation studio here> measured significant difference processing their animation -- a process which uses huge amounts of I/O and all the computing power it can.  In that environment the difference was huge.

Please note that I am not disclosing company names due to an NDA I signed.
Logged

eMachines EL-1300G desktop, 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e CPU, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6150 SE video
VLocity Linux 7.0-rc1

HP Mini 110 netbook, 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 2GB RAM, Intel 950 video
VL 7.0 Light
wcs
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1144


« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2008, 10:42:52 am »

It's weird because when I chose XFS, I felt the installation was a lot slower.
Two days later, I reinstalled with ReiserFS (same computer, same partition, same vector cd, same packages), and it was back to "normal".

But I guess it must have been some other reason... I actually wasn't expecting any discernible differences, and that's what surprised me.
Logged
Witek Mozga
Vectorite
***
Posts: 113



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2008, 11:48:41 pm »

You won't notice the difference between XFS and ReiserFS doing casual computing.  <Insert name of Hollywood animation studio here> measured significant difference processing their animation -- a process which uses huge amounts of I/O and all the computing power it can.  In that environment the difference was huge.

Which was faster then? reiserfs or xfs?

Logged

MikeCindi
Tester
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1071


« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2008, 03:59:56 am »

XFS will peform better using large files (i.e. > 1 Gb) such as with video rendering/editing.
Logged

The plans of the diligent lead to profit...Pro. 21:5
VL64 7.1b3                                     RLU 486143
caitlyn
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2839



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2008, 09:55:03 pm »

Yes, XFS was much faster in the environment I described.
Logged

eMachines EL-1300G desktop, 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e CPU, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6150 SE video
VLocity Linux 7.0-rc1

HP Mini 110 netbook, 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 2GB RAM, Intel 950 video
VL 7.0 Light
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!