Hi....Two part question:
Is the ReiserFS file system noticably better than the ext3 file system? Or is ext3 better? Both support journaling.
And is there a way to convert one file system to another in Linux? For instance in Winblows 2000 they have a utility to convert from FAT32 to NTFS.
ReiserFS, to me, feels faster than ext3 - one asset it has is that journal recovering after a crash is much faster - which I enjoy a lot. The best overall journalling FS I've tried was XFS, but the implementation in the kernel is horrible.
I have never heard of such an application, and I don't think one exists - so in the spirit of open source I guess you have to write one yourself - sorry.
Does Red Hat allow you to choose ReiserFS over ext3 in its install?
[quote author=LinuxGuy link=board=2;threadid=3817;start=0#38385 date=1024295004]
Does Red Hat allow you to choose ReiserFS over ext3 in its install?
[/quote]
hello,
no they don't.
RedHat has proved that ReiserFS is flawed and can easily cause data corruption. I would personally HIGHLY reccomend, if not flat out demand that you use, ext3. It isn't as fast with very small files (as ReiserFS is), but is significantly faster with larger files.
Since RedHat has yet to have a test server survive the ReiserFS test, I would never use it. Ext3 is ext2 with journaling and some speed enhancements. If you liked ext2 but hated those damn fsck times, ext3 is heaven. IBM (XFS) and SGI(JFS ?) are porting their FS's to linux, but are not as mature as ext3 as of yet, and would wait on those as well.
SGI makes XFS.
IBM makes JFS.
While I haven't tried JFS, I swear by XFS. I feel that it has been pretty stable in comparison to both ReiserFS and Ext3.
I had a problem, though-- using Ext3, I made a 40GB partition. Any time I copied a file to it, it took FOREVER. With small files, it just took long enough to copy the file, but with large files, the whole system locked up until it was finished.
Has anybody else had this experience? I was using kernel 2.4.16 I think when this happened. I was so disappointed, I never used Ext3 again. Has this changed, or should I wait again before using Ext3?
Note: I am now using XFS on the 40 GB partition. It has run rock-solid ever since.
[quote author=alc6379 link=board=2;threadid=3817;start=0#38443 date=1024339859]
SGI makes XFS.
IBM makes JFS.
While I haven't tried JFS, I swear by XFS. I feel that it has been pretty stable in comparison to both ReiserFS and Ext3.
I had a problem, though-- using Ext3, I made a 40GB partition. Any time I copied a file to it, it took FOREVER. With small files, it just took long enough to copy the file, but with large files, the whole system locked up until it was finished.
Has anybody else had this experience? I was using kernel 2.4.16 I think when this happened. I was so disappointed, I never used Ext3 again. Has this changed, or should I wait again before using Ext3?
Note: I am now using XFS on the 40 GB partition. It has run rock-solid ever since.
[/quote]
alc6379 i have 1 question, ive used XFS before but when i used the /boot cannot be in a XFS partition, have this been solved??
[quote author=alc6379 link=board=2;threadid=3817;start=0#38443 date=1024339859]
SGI makes XFS.
IBM makes JFS.
[/quote]
Okay, I was wrong. I forget who makes what sometimes. Anyway -- I have had a total of ~8 systems using ext3 -- and with hdparm the systems are very quick, and reach very good speeds (with regards to its interface -- gotta mix of ATA, ATA33, ATA66, and ATA100)[/me]
I trust XFS, and JFS on the native systems, but not on any linux production box -- yet. I think that IBM and SGI are the only two that can ever compete with ext3, and expect IBM to be the winner once the FS has been matured on linux/x86. I cannot reccomend a error prone FS that has borked me on multiple occasions. I am glad that XFS is doing well for you! I will wait for stability at this point on my machines.
As for your ext3 issue -- I cant say that I have had that porblem, although had heard some reports of this occuring to a small percentage of ext3 users. I have always done clean formats of ext3 and had nothing but pure joy -- no more 1/2 hr fsck for my drives!!! Yay!!!
Everybody here can probably post anecdotal evidence for their FS until the cows come home, and it wouldn't do anybody any good. So I probably won't tell you about how I switched from ext2 to reiserfs and have never had any troubles with it
(also, the ReiserFS FAQ has the answer to the question "is it possible to convert an ext2 drive to reiserfs without loss of data?". hint, hint)
I'm a ReiserFS fan and I've been using it ever since Drake 8.0 came out (Which was the first distro I believe to include it) I've had no problems whatsoever using it. My 166 samba server uses it and frequently I turn it off without powering down. Haven't had any trouble yet. Also, Reiser4 will be out in a couple of months. Could be interesting
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks