File system types anyone done tests?

[jessejazza]

I think i'm right in saying that ext3 is the most commonly used file system with linux as it contains journaling features for safer data and faster reboots.

Formatting in linux seems very quick compared with windoze which seems to thoroughly format each sector and then allows scandisk to carry out careful examination. Gparted seems to format a large disk very quickley compared with windoze. Linux does allow one to check for bad sectors [using badblocks] but it doesn't seem to be as thorough as windoze. From what i've read winxp uses ntfs and win2k uses ntfs or vfat [FAT32 files need to be <4gb]. I did read that with windoze one is best to use Ext2 IFS for windoze for interchangeability between OS.

On my PC i store all data safely on a removable drive so i can use it on either machine [linux or windows] for which vfat seems to be the appropriate option to me and my view that vfat being simpler means more reliable.

has anyone done testing
a] does linux format as well as windoze?
b] what file system do you recommend for storing data?
c] how can i check a disk reliably in linux [badblocks, ****.ext3 don't seem to be as good as scandisk]

Or just backup, backup backup... then one doesn't need to worry!
thanks

[lmilano]

Re: File system types anyone done tests?

You can reboot on Recovery Mode and run a disk check. I am not sure what you mean that disk checks are better on Windows, or what is that comment based on. Linux is used in 88% or so of the 500 fastest super computers in the world, it is probably reliable ;-) I've used the same /home directories for me and my each family member in my household for the last 10 year. We never had lost data. Never, ever

IMHO:

* ext3 (for now) for the main directory (root), and move it to ext4 for the next release (9.10)
* xfs for huge data directories (you can format 1 Tb in a few seconds, it scales gracefully with size)

Cheers!

[lmilano]

Re: File system types anyone done tests?

Phoronix is the best place for Linux performance info:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...nchmarks&num=1

[dibl]

Re: File system types anyone done tests?

Lot of links here:

http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...opic=3087434.0

Useful insights here:

http://sidux.com/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-1336.html


I'm presently running Kubuntu 64-bit on an ext4 filesystem (since April) and sidux 64-bit on a jfs filesystem. I don't recommend XFS for a root filesystem, but it's OK for storage.

[jessejazza]

Re: File system types anyone done tests?

You can reboot on Recovery Mode and run a disk check. I am not sure what you mean that disk checks are better on Windows, or what is that comment based on.

My comment is based only on time the windoze takes to format a disk and that one can use scandisk to thoroughly check it. Why does windoze take so long compared with Gparted doing say ext3? Windoze seems to write to each sector of the disk... but as you say ext3 is used on a large number of systems now with reliability.

thanks for those links i've read them.

[kevinc]

Re: File system types anyone done tests?

If you use Linux only, most experts recommend ext3. Ext4 is poised to take over and is offered during install in Karmic and some other distros.

If you use Linux and Windows fat32 is probably easier for both OS's to use and has become basically a default for removable drives, especially when the removable drive will be used on Windows and Linux.

I have one removable drive, encrypted for backup using dm-crypt, using ext3. One of the advantages of Linux is the fs check every 30 or so boots, and with ext3 and others the journaling which makes recovery easier.

[lmilano]

Re: File system types anyone done tests?

You can reboot on Recovery Mode and run a disk check. I am not sure what you mean that disk checks are better on Windows, or what is that comment based on.

My comment is based only on time the windoze takes to format a disk and that one can use scandisk to thoroughly check it. Why does windoze take so long compared with Gparted doing say ext3? Windoze seems to write to each sector of the disk... but as you say ext3 is used on a large number of systems now with reliability.

thanks for those links i've read them.

You would be surprised how _much_ a fs can be optimized. For instance: ext4 partitions formatting is much. much, much faster than ext3. Butthe underlying technology is similar. Xfs formats very, very quickly and it's not any less reliable. It basically has to do the info is logically organized. Some things can simply done much better some times, and some times devs make compromises (prefer throughput vs responsivess, etc), which is why many times one FS beats another one at certain tests, and gets beaten at other tests.

But in short, you fix things (including recovering info from bad sectors) with fsck, which you don't need to call from the command line, but you can do what I mentioned instead. And even that, can take little or a long times depending on the fs. In addition, XFS allows for online defrag. Ext 4 will allow soon.