Ext3 or ext4

Hello,
When installing Archlinux on a new computer, which do you think would be the best choice of file system: ext3 or ext4?
Does ext4 still have potential instability issues, or is it very reliable now?
Is there maybe another filesystem I should look at instead?
Thanks!

ext3's fsck times are pretty slow. I have a 40 GB ext3 and it's painful. I literally grab a cup of coffee while waiting for it to finish. It takes minutes.
My other box is 80 GB ext4 and fsck takes just a couple extra seconds compared to the regular (w/o fsck) boot.
You can tweak both filesystems, depending whether you want to be safe or get extra speed (things like barriers=0) http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation … s/ext4.txt

Similar Messages

  • Kernel panic after converting from ext3 to ext4?

    I'm running Arch 64 on a Lenovo ThinkPad R61.  I did a pacman -Syu this morning and upgraded to 2.6.28-ARCH, among other things.  I rebooted to verify that nothing went amiss with the kernel upgrade.  Indeed, there appeared to be no problems.  I then followed some directions on converting my partition from ext3 to ext4.  (I did a tune2fs and then a fsck.)  After finishing the fsck, I rebooted to find the following error message:
    kinit: Cannot open root device sda2(8,2)
    kinit: init not found
    Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init!
    I rebooted twice and got the same result.
    What should I do?

    see http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38136
    i had this prolbem but i resolved
    Last edited by ugaciaka (2009-01-16 17:20:06)

  • ERP6.0 EHP7 : ext3 or ext4 filesystem

    Hi Gurus,
    Is using ext4(filesystem type) allowed for ERP6.0 EHP7 (RHEL6.5) ?
    1839658 - Is ext3 file system supported for ECC 6.0 EHP6 on RHEL 6 or ext4 required?
    SAP note above saying nothing about ext4.
    Regards,
    AM.

    Unfortunately I don't see one but according to the SAP note 1839658 - Is ext3 file system supported for ECC 6.0 EHP6 on RHEL 6 or ext4 required? I believe EXT3 and EXT4 are supported. Maybe you can raise an OSS message and get this clarified.
    Regards
    RB

  • Filesystems benchmarked: EXT3 vs EXT4 vs XFS vs BTRFS

    I wondered across this fine artical this morning, and thought I would share it with the community.
    Quote:
    Let's start from the most obvious: the best balanced filesystem seems to be the mature, almost aging EXT3. This is natural, as it received most cumulative improvements over a long period of time. It has very good sequential and random write speeds and reasonable read speed, factors that are of utmost importance on several different tasks. For example, if you plan to run a database server you are almost forced to use EXT3, as all other filesystems seems to have big problems with synchronized random write speed. Also, you can't go wrong with EXT3 if you use it on your workstation as its performances are quite good in a great amount of different jobs. Finally, EXT3 is more stable than the others FS as most of its bug are by now already worked out.
    However, this not means that EXT3 is the perfect FS: first, it that lacks some important features as delayed allocation and online compression. It lacks native snapshots capability also but you can use LVM to overcome this. It is more fragmentation-prone that EXT4 and XFS and it is very slow in creating/deleting large amount of files, denoting a not-so-good metadata handling. Moreover, it use more CPU cycles than EXT4 and XFS, but with todays CPU I don't think that this is a great problem. If you can live with these minor faults, EXT3 is the right filesystem for you.
    Please don't just read that one paragraph though, they have ten pages worth of detailed and varied benchmarks they used to form that opinion. And the artical is dated from the middle of last month, nice and recent
    Interesting stuff, I thought that ext4 would do better (not that it did poorly, but relative to ext3) And that btrfs wouldnt be as slow as it currently seems, though as the tester commented, it's a very new filesystem. Maybe Arch should ship btrfs as an install option? Help these guys iron out the bugs!

    fukawi2 wrote:
    Misfit138 wrote: Dodge RAM 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel FTW.
    F650 FTW
    Well if you go there, then I have to pull out my Chevy Kodiak Pickup.
    Last edited by Misfit138 (2010-12-04 02:13:59)

  • Ext3 to ext4 /home upgrade

    Hello folks,
    I'm thinking on upgrading my /home ext3 partition to ext4, I already read about the new features and performance improvement, also about the little problems, and the bug about the data loss, it not being a problem to me 'cause I have an UPS.
    So, do you recomend me to upgrade or wait a little more for any important problem being right now, etc etc.
    Also, how do you recommend me to do the switch;
    a) upgrade the ext3 partition to ext4
    b) backup everything format to ext4 and copy back
    Any trick to increase permormance, noatime, data=writeback, etc etc
    Thanks for your opinions and excuse my grammar.

    All info on performance tricks, etc. can be found in the ext4.txt file in the Documentation folder in the kernel sources.
    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/g … xt;hb=HEAD
    ext4 is a stable, solid FS that has been in the kernel for two years or so now, even though it's only recently been marked stable.
    As for the data loss, it's not a bug. Here's the lowdown. See, *most* filesystems behave in such a way that data is comitted to disk, practically guaranteed, in a very short amount of time. XFS, ext4, and Btrfs all perform delayed allocation in order to be faster. Apps that have been written according to the POSIX standard will be fine with ext4 and those other filesystems. Some apps, however, are written in such a way that if there is a sudden power loss (if the ext4 filesystem suddenly dies), data might be truncated, usually to 0. This is a bug in the _apps_ - the standard makes no guarantee that the filesystem works like ext2/3, ReiserFS, JFS, etc. But since there's a good number of buggy apps, Tso is working on some ugly hacks to make this scenario less likely. What you can do right now is add the 'nodealloc' mount option to your fstab. This will disable delayed allocation. Boom, no more 'bug'. Lower speeds, but still faster than ext3. Kernel 2.6.30 will likely have more efficient hacks that can let you have partial delayed allocation.
    Durr. Just read that you have a UPS. So, you're good, most likely
    Although, I would only really recommend ext4 if you have particular need of its features - fast fsck, fair performance increase (you likely will not notice it outright), barriers (makes data even less likely to go *poof*, but there can be big performance losses, and cannot be used with device-mapper (LVM, LUKS)), file # limit, etc., OR if you are planning on setting up a new /home anyways and want to spare trouble later. If you're already on another FS and would otherwise not need to do any switching or anything, I'd stick with ext3 for maybe a year.

  • Mounting ext3 root FS as ext4

    Hi,
    I'd like to move from ext3 to ext4 on my HD, but I'm not yet completely sure about that , so I'd like first to try out the "no conversion" upgrade by mounting my existing ext3 filesystem as ext4.
    So I changed "ext3" in my fstab to "ext4", but the system still mounts my ext3 device as ext3. I think the problem resides in klibc and initramfs .
    I tried setting the rootfstype= parameter at boot but I get Kernel Panic.
    The system is upgraded to lastest version.
    Can you help me in getting my ext3 root be mounted as ext4 at boot time?
    Thanks
    Marcello

    Look at the wiki page:
    http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext … Converting
    You did not convert the fs, so it is still mounted as ext3, but used in a ext4-compatible mode. You'll need to convert the fs as described below on the same wiki page to take advantage of the ext4 features and improvements.
    Be aware though that there may be some data loss related to some software bugs (such as KDE): http://www.h-online.com/open/Possible-d … ews/112821

  • What about these file systems: ext4, reiserfs, and jfs?

    I use ext3 as my file system now.
    It said that these three file systems are better than ext3.
    Ext4 is a successor to ext3. I think it must be better.
    Reiserfs is very fast.
    And jfs is effective(low usage of CPU).
    Could anyone talk about the experiences of using these FSs?

    EXT4: should mature into an awesome FS: faster than JFS, and more fault-tolerant. I'll try it one of these months.
    XFS: nice. By design, it throws away files on an unclean mount, though. I never had FS corruption, but it would just up and get rid of critical files, like fstab, if I had just edited them and then had a nasty shutdown. Maybe it's a good /tmp FS?
    RFS3: it used to be fast with all but large (hundreds of MB) files. IME, the maturing of the 2.6 CFQ and deadline schedulers took care of that. Fsck was never a strong point.
    RFS4: what happens to a jet airplane if a bird gets sucked in an engine? It was kind of like that.
    EXT3 (as a preface to JFS): from early 1998 up to late 2007, moving from 6.4 to 8.4 to 2x6.4+8.4 to 10 to 20 to 120GB, and well over 100 2000 and XP boxes serviced...I had significant corruption of NTFS FS or files all of three times, and none rendered the system unusable (it took a Win98 low-level FAT32 working trojan to do that...friggin' thing had a low threat level according to Semantic, but ate almost all my C: drive). Since moving to Linux in late '07, I've now had at least six partitions made FUBAR, and a handful that went to read-only at the slightest provocation (to give credit where it's due: I could get data off of those before wiping the partition). I've been working with itty computers lately, and EXT3 has been nothing but trouble (many hard-locks, kernel panics, app crashes while writing, etc.--a little hard on the FS). It seems to be fine on machines running all the time, that do their writing sparsely.
    JFS: fast as EXT3, and seems to always recover on an unclean mount. On very slow hardware, it is definitely faster than EXT3...but I mean hardware competitive with Pentium MMXs, where EXT3 regularly maxes out the CPU. Cons? You'd best have your data backed up (but, if you trust any single copy of your data, you're asking for trouble, regardless of FS). It generally can bring your FS back to an old good state. But if not, it will happily throw files away, to make the FS itself clean quicker. So far the worst I've lost were Firefox cookies and other such goodies (never my session, luckily), but it's enough to show the possibilities.
    Last edited by cerbie (2009-02-22 10:50:35)

  • FSTAB plus ext3 4 help

    Hey
    well basically ive done some reading and everythings said that adding noatime to ur fstab for the /  folder can increase application/general responsiveness
    but the only thing is my fstab doesnt look like everyone else's theres no /dev/sda1 etc
    # /etc/fstab: static file system information
    # <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>
    none /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0
    none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0
    /dev/cdrom /media/cdrom auto ro,user,noauto,unhide 0 0
    /dev/dvd /media/dvd auto ro,user,noauto,unhide 0 0
    UUID=56f324cd-d0fc-4634-87c6-980c4b07d726 swap swap defaults 0 0
    UUID=b6e641d2-6187-4335-bc8f-8c25432809df / ext3 defaults 0 1
    #usbfs
    none /proc/bus/usb usbfs devgid=108,devmode=664 0 0
    oh and im also wondering if there is an easy way to convert from ext3 to ext4 with out totally borking my system
    because i do school work on here and dont want to have to reinstall all the apps and stuff once again
    Thank you
    Love Arch btw its been great coming from Ubuntu and OpenSUSE

    PvtVenom wrote:
    yea i have sudo installed and what not
    but ive never really worked with the fstab before
    On to the next thing
    is there an easy way to convert from ext3 to ext4 without reinstall?
    Hmmmm... Don't think so. If you can't find a solution, just copy all your files to an external drive/partition, reformat to ext4, and copy back.
    After doing this, you will need to update /etc/fstab and /boot/grub/menu.lst with the partition's new UUID. Otherwise, your system will never finish starting up, since it waits endlessly for you to connect the now-nonexistent device with the root filesystem (the / directory) on it. You must also change the partition's type from ext3 to ext4 in fstab.
    Also, a note on copying. You will need to preserve all metadata when doing it or your system will most likely not work properly. Use these commands:
    Copying:
    sudo cp -axv / /media/some-hard-drive
    Restoring:
    cd /media/some-hard-drive
    sudo cp -axv . /
    The -v option isn't necessary, but I recommend using it.
    Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-04-29 20:51:11)

  • Getting ready for ext4

    EDIT (18jan09): Since this thread was begun, pointone has added a wiki section on converting ext3 partitions to ext4. Find it here.
    I guess this means I don't have much of a life, but I'm getting pretty excited about ext4. I haven't tried a new filesystem in ages.
    There are good pages out there on ext4, such as this how-to and this overview. Still, I'm a little wobbly on just how the conversion/migration is going to go.
    I won't be creating any ext4 partitions from scratch right away, but I'll be converting two partitions from ext3 to ext4. It looks as if this is all I'll have to do:
    (1) Use kernel 2.6.28 or later.
    (2) Make sure ext4 is enabled in my kernel config.
    (3) In /etc/fstab, change the file type of my two ext3 partitions to ext4.
    Is this right? Is there anything else necessary?
    Now, here's an additional question:
    If I want to apply extents to my existing ext3 partitions as I convert to ext4, do I have to do anything? I realize that in doing so, I will no long be able to access those formerly ext3 partitions as ext3. Or at least that's what I understand.
    Last edited by dhave (2009-01-18 22:44:45)

    O.K., after finally getting through this process of converting two partitions from ext3 to ext4, including my root (but *not* my boot, which I left as ext2) partition, here's the outline of what I had to do. If others could scan this for errors or missteps, or make other improvements, please do so.
    Note that this is for converting an existing ext3 partition to ext4, not for creating a new ext4 partition from scratch (which is arguably easier and probably more efficient, since you'll have all ext4 features enabled from the beginning).
    Here's the procedure I followed:
    (1) Back up any ext3 partitions that you want to convert to ext4. I didn't have to use my backups, but I came very close to needing to, and it made the process much more pleasant knowing that I had the backups if I needed them.
    (2) Edit /etc/mkinitcpio.conf, adding "ext4" to the "MODULES=" line. NOTE: If you're using mkinitcpio-0.5.20-1 or later and klibc-1.5.14-2 or later (both still in [Testing] repo as of 31dec08), this step may no longer be necessary. Edited on 31dec08.
    (3) Install kernel 2.6.28 or later. You can use Arch kernel26 from testing (as of 26dec08); just verify that the kernel version is at least 2.6.28. Ext4 is enabled by default in the kernel config. In the Arch kernel 2.6.28, ext4 is built by default as a module, which seems to be fine.
    (4) In /etc/fstab, change the file type of any ext3 partitions that you want to change to ext4. Don't change /boot to ext4 unless you've upgraded to grub2.
    (5) Now do the actual filesystem conversion using the tune2fs and fsck tools. These need to be run when your target filesystem is unmounted. So, take a recent LiveCD of some sort. NOTE: It needs to have a current version of e2fsprogs; I like SystemRescue 1.1.3, which has e2fsprogs 1.41.3. A current Arch install CD should serve, too, as long as it's recent. (I'd download and burn a fresh one just to make sure.)
    (a) Boot from the LiveCD, then run this on the filesystems you want to convert from ext3 to ext4:
    tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/yourfilesystem
    (b) After running this command you MUST run fsck. If you don't do it, Ext4 WILL NOT MOUNT your filesystem. This fsck run is needed to return the filesystem to a consistent state. It WILL tell you that it finds checksum errors in the group descriptors - it's expected, and it's exactly what it needs to be rebuilt to be able to mount it as Ext4, so don't get surprised by them. Since each time it finds one of those errors it asks you what to do, always say YES. If you don't want to be asked, add the "-p" parameter to the fsck command, it means "automatic repair":
    fsck -pf /dev/yourfilesystem
    [This part is taken from the kernelnewbies page that shuay referred to above: http://kernelnewbies.org/Ext4 .]
    On my 200Gb partition, I think fsck needed about 15 minutes to complete this, using the "-pf" switch.
    (6) Edit the grub /boot/grub/menu.lst file if you migrated your /root partition. Add this to the kernel line:
    rootfstype=ext4
    NOTE: If you're using mkinitcpio-0.5.20-1 or later and klibc-1.5.14-2 or later (both still in [Testing] repo as of 31dec08), the step just above (#6) may no longer be necessary. Edited on 31dec08.
    Note also that I'm using grub legacy (not grub2), so I didn't migrate my /boot partition and I was able to make grub changes in /boot/grub/menu.lst rather than the newer grub.cfg approach. I don't know what to do for Lilo, as I no longer use it.
    (7) If your main kernel doesn't boot, try the fallback.
    That should do it. Please, if I've omitted something or goofed up otherwise, say so soon! I don't want to mess anyone else up.
    Last edited by dhave (2008-12-31 19:59:27)

  • Ext4 issue

    Its propably not a bug, but propably ive broken something when migrating from ext3 to ext4.
    Now when my computer will hang up, or power will go off - so computer is off, without shutting it down from system, i lose contents of files which were writen short time before computers crash. But when computer is first run after crash and ext4 filesystem is mounted, it doesn't even try to recover this files from journal.
    Any suggestions?

    skottish wrote:I do have a warning though, and it can be confirmed by others in this forum: ext4 does not crash gracefully right now. If you're on an unstable system, crashing can cause the loss of at least configuration files. My workstation is rock solid, so I've never seen any issues. Another computer that I was working on was having crashes due to an older Intel card with the newer xorg, and configuration files were being killed all over the place.
    EDIT:  He beat me to it. 
    Last edited by Wintervenom (2009-03-09 17:00:44)

  • Move a big file from a mac system to a windows 8 laptop usb usb flash drive

    Hello i am using a 32 gb flash drive to copy a 10gb file from mac os x to my flash drive. Then i want to insert that flash drive to my windows 8 pc and store it there.
    I cant use a network connection to transfer files because i dont have a ethernet cable or an network connection yet. So i must use a smart procedure for making my mac communicate with my pc at home. I cant use any other types of sharing methods except for a usb flash drive. So i know that the mac cannot detect NTFS filesystems and i cant use FAT32 even though mac recognizes it because FAT 32 is unable to store large files abotu 10GB of size. Now i have to use i think ext3 or ext4 or also HFS but when i successfully copy the file from mac to flash drive then insert it into my pc, the windows 8 OS will not detect the windows pc because i dont think windows is made to detect these filesystems by default.
    So i have tried using, HFS explorer and ext2/ext3/ext4 volume manager and ext2exploer or GPARTED live cd's latest version's copy and paste functions but they seem to not work propely and there is a problem, i cannot  see any flash drive in HFS explorer even though my drive is formatted as hfs.
    So i need a program that can detect HFS or ext3/4 formatted flash drives and is able to copy a file from there straight to my windows 8 NTFS hard drive or a folder in it.
    I have checked my firewall settings and defense settings. I am the administrator of my pc and i have even removed the windows password and the mac one but still i get lots of issus JUST to copy a file between a pc and a mac. Remmember that i have to copy files FROM a mac system running snow leopard to my windows 8 pc not the OTHER WAY were i have to copy from the windows to a mac.
    Please tell me as much as possable about software out there and tell me software that costs money. I am able to buy any good software for doing this.
    Thanks in advance.
    raghav

    Take the flash drive to the PC and format it as exFAT.
    (95473)

  • Is there a way to configure NTFS file system on an NSS 324 SmartStorage unit. So far I can setup ext 3 or ext 4 but no option for NTFS

    Is there a way to configure NTFS file system on an NSS 324 SmartStorage unit. So far I can setup ext 3 or ext 4 but no option for NTFS. This unit should be joining a Windows Server 2008 R2 network and needs to be shared with all users. This unit will replace a File server running Win 2003 SP2.
    Message was edited by: Hermann Koster
    Thank you very much for your reply. The idea is to decommission the Windows file server which is running Windows Server 2003 SP2 operating system but is not running as a DC but just a member server. All this server is doing is providing file server services so my idea is to replace it with the NSS 324 box. My only concern is that when my NSS joins the domain all my users would be able to see and access network shares transparently, the same way they saw the former W2003 file server. After I transferred the data from File server I will use the same for NSS that was used for file server as well as same IP address and folders path as before.
    Any suggestions or advice?
    Once again thank you very much for your reply.
    Cheers,

    The internal HDDs must be formatted in either EXT3 or EXT4 file system because NSS uses Linux OS.  This is mainly because the RAM designed to fit with the customized Linux OS's size.
    You can connect to an external HDD via a  USB or eSATA port. The external HDD's file system can be NTFS, FAT32, AFT or EXT3/4 to be recognized for read/write. You can connect a 2TB USB/eSATA drive connec to the NSS via USB port to format your HDD for NTFS, AFT, FAT32, or EXT3/4 partition.
    You can join the NSS to a Windows domainr so all domain users to access NSS. You cannot replace the NSS for the Windows 2003 SP2 server. They are two different products and do different jobs. Windows server is features sets server while the NSS is the files/data server.
    Hope that helps!!

  • X230: SATA errors with 180GB Intel 520 SSD under heavy write load

    Hi,
    We spent a couple of days cornering what appears to be an issue with the Intel 520 SSD drives in Lenovo x230 laptops. It was first showing up on a clean Debian installation, while installing a guest operating system into a VM. Looking around on forums, there appears to be some people having issues with database workloads too. So I decided to create a small user-space program to repoduce the problem. IMPORTANT: Before you try it, be ready for a system crash requiring a cold reboot.. It's available at:
    git://git.efficios.com/test-ssd.git
    direct link to .c file:
    https://git.efficios.com/?p=test-ssd.git;a=blob;f=test-ssd-write.c;hb=refs/heads/master
    This program simply performs random-access-writes of 4Kb into a single file.
    Executive summary of our findings (the details are in the test-ssd-write.c header in the git repo):
    - We reproduced this issue on 4 x230 machines (all our x230 have 180GB Intel drives, and they are all affected),
    - We took a SSD from one of the machines, moved it into an x200, and the problem still occurs,
    - The problem seems to occur independently of the filesystem (reproduced on ext3 and ext4),
    - Problem reproduced by test-ssd-write.c (git tree above): After less than 5 minutes of the heavy write workload, we get SATA errors and we need to cold reboot the machine to access the drive again. Example usage (don't forget to prepare for a computer freeze):
      ./test-ssd-write somefileondisk 209715200 1234 -z
      (see options by just running ./test-ssd-write)
    The problem occurs with drive model SSDSC2BW180A3L, with both firmwares LE1i and LF1i (those are Lenovo firmwares). We could reproduce the issue on 3.2 (Debian), 3.5 (Debian), 3.7.9 (Arch) distribution kernels. We could reproduce it with x230 BIOS G2ET90WW (2.50) 2012-20-12 and G2ET86WW (2.06) 2012-11-13, but since it can be reproduced on a x200 too, it does not appear to be a BIOS issue.
    We tried the program on a range of other SSD drives, one of those including the same SandForce 2281 controller (details within test-ssd-write.c header). So our current guess is that the Lenovo firmware on the SSD might be part of the problem, but it might be good if we could to confirm that Intel's firmwares work fine.
    Thoughts, ideas, hints about who to contact on this issue would be very much welcome,
    Thanks,
    Mathieu

    I can confirm the exact same problem with Debian and Ubuntu.
    I can reproduce it easily on Debian by installing a VM.
    On Ubuntu it is harder to reproduce but I already hit this problem when installing updates (dpkg does a lot of sync/fdatasync just like your test program).
    I think the difference between the 2 distros that explain why it is easier to reproduce on one is the default I/O scheduler (cfq for Debian and deadline for Ubuntu).
    Lenovo already completely replaced my laptop (X230 with SSDSC2BW180A3L) and I still have this problem.
    We need a firmware fix.
    Thanks !

  • Best filesystem for external hard drive?

    I just bought a Maxtor Basics 1 TB external hard drive. I think the current filesystem it is using is NTFS. Should I stick with it, or should I reformat it to ext3( or something better?). What are the advantages and disadvantages?. Primary use is in linux.

    xfs is great for big files, but so is ext4. xfs sucks with small files, ext4 doesn't. ext4 by default offers safer journaling, but it will be easily available only with the next kernel release, which should come soon, and might be regarded as more hazardous than well-tested xfs. Converting a filesystem from ext3 to ext4 is trivial, but you'd have to move the old files around to make them use extents.
    I myself have moved my /home partition, holding mostly big files, to ext4 from xfs, but that's because of its better small file performance.

  • File systems and fragmentation

    I'm a converted ubuntu user, and I love arch to death now... but here's my question.
    When I was using ubuntu I read a post on lifehacker.com that said
    Defrag – Nope. Linux file systems do not have a need to be defragmented.
    Original link: http://lifehacker.com/5817282/what-kind … y-linux-pc
    Since I've always used ext4 and I still can't find anything on needing to defrag an ext3 or ext4 filesystem I assume it still holds true. However, I was reacently read this article on the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ma … filesystem
    and decided to try out XFS on my /home partition. So i checked out the XFS page. all it has is a small section of fragmentation and how to defrag it and check how fragmented it is.
    I also remember seeing somewhere on the wiki (although I can't remember where) that JFS also needed it as well (might not have been JFS not entirely sure).
    So is this something I should worry about as I used to on windows? Are ext3 and ext4 really immune as they seem to be? And what are your recommendations on file systems to use?

    Zarcjap wrote:And what are your recommendations on file systems to use?
    If you're asking which FS you should use, there are already a few threads about this e.g. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=135330
    It depends on what are you going to use it for.

Maybe you are looking for