[SLUG] FS Comparison

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 12 June 2008 14:53, Stephen O'Neill wrote:
> David Knight wrote:
> > Can anyone point to a simplified version of the info on the
> > wiki page?
> 
> Not off hand. Not sure what you'd want the simplified one to say?
> 
> > I tend to just plumb for ext 3 when formatting but should I
> > be considering other filesystems?
> 
> I wouldn't bother - ext3 is robust and not painfully slow ergo I'd stick
> with it. It being the default for most distributions gives me confidence
> that it's a good choice for my needs.

Exactly: everyone uses it, everyone supports it, it's (essentially) reasonably 
old and well established, therefore while it may not have the best 
performance, it is probably reasonably robust.

It's a shame about reiser4, reiser4+crypt-compress was looking to be a really 
great filesystem (assuming a lot of work on stability etc)... but generally 
speaking, performance is secondary to stability. An open source project that 
is successfully decapitated probably wasn't working well in the first place, 
maybe it will just take a transition period... It will be interesting to see 
how long it takes for ext4 to be widely accepted as stable and usable.

Personally, I use reiser3 for most of my LVs, but more out of habit than 
anything else. I used to be a big fan. I've had a lot more serious data loss 
from LVM than from reiserfs. In both cases combined with either hardware 
failures or dumb mistakes.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/scarborough/attachments/20080613/2dbc09e9/attachment.bin