Stick with ext3, or go with JFS/XFS?

So, I got an Acer Aspire One a few days ago, and I thought this would be a good time to try Arch.
Usually, I just go for ext3 (seems the most common, right?)
But I looked into JFS, and it was said to have lower CPU usage, which seems good for a netbook.
Someone also mentioned something about XFS too (they told me to make sure my system never crashed with it though )
(I actually got some NFS stale file handlers errors on bootup, while trying to access /var/logs/dmesg.log and a few other files, but I couldn't get rid of this issue, so I'm going to reformat/install.)
So which should I choose? ext3/JFS/XFS?

I prefer ext3 file-system because I also have Windows on my computer and I need a simple way to access my Linux partitions under Windows. And for this Ext2 IFS is working great:)
But if you have only Linux and you don't run enterprise servers on it then JFS, XFS, ReiserFS are almost as good (or bad) as ext3.
Regarding ext4 I would wait with using it for at least half a year and see how stable and safe it is because data safety is very important for me.

Similar Messages

  • Risk Ext4 or stick with JFS

    Ok, I know that there are a lot of post about this, but I still can not make up my mind!
    I have been using JFS just fine on my main PC for about a year now, it has been fast and stable. I have just go a new laptop and I'm about to stick arch on it, I'm a bit unsure if I stick with JFS or go with the newer ext4.
    The laptop has a 128GB SSD if that makes a difference, I want a journled fs so no ext2 and hopefully the drive will hold up well!
    Any thought or comparisions of ext4 vs JFS with both tunes but still hopefully stable.  I have to say I'm leaning to JFS but purly as it is less main stream, at the same time common sense says to go with ext4 as it going to get a lot more attention...

    There aren't any specific features that I need, there just seem to be quite a few posts floating around about data loss on ext4, I don't want that
    It seems nodelalloc fixes this but slows the fs down to ext3 speeds, at least for now...
    JFS has been quick and reliable for me, not sure it is worth the switch over, but I don't reformat very often so need to pick right.
    Last edited by Brocon (2009-04-05 12:40:22)

  • Ext3+dir_index vs JFS, XFS, ReiserFS. Choice problem

    I'm a linux noob.
    Going to install Archlinux to new laptop Inspiron 1520
    Right now playing with Archlinux on vmware.
    I want my laptop be fast, and of course choosing right FS is important in this regard.
    Let me sum up all i read so far about different FS.
    ext3 vs XFS, JFS, ReiserFS:
    - ext3 is most stable, most supported. But also slowest.
    - XFS, JFS, Reiser are much faster, but have stability and or support problems.
    - ext3 with dir_index is fast, almost as fast as others.
    - noatime,nodiratime considerably improve performance of all these FS
    So here are my questions.
    1. Will ext3 + dir_index + noatime,nodiratime be up to the par with XFS,JFS ?
    2. Does disr_index enabled by default on latest Arch or do I have to enable it manually ?
    3. What other advantages besides speed JFS,XFS have comparing to ext3 ?

    lucke wrote:Fragmentation can be an issue. <snip>....<snip>s impact on performance.
    Yes indeed fragmentation can cause a significant penalty in performance, especially if you are copying large, very fragmented files. But for a desktop system people usually deal with smaller files than ones downloaded in large torrents; at least that was my impression for my previous post. The thing about XFS being designed as it is, is that it doesn't handle fragmentation of large files well. Basically, the extensive use it makes of B+ trees make it particularly cpu intensive for working with reads that are non-continuous and hence is particularly hurt when copying highly fragmented, large files. This isn't quite as pronounced in JFS (but the performance hit is there) because it's cpu usage isn't as high as XFS; and it's algorithms are more optimized for working with smaller continuous reads than XFS (to my understanding). This is probably the main reason why XFS has a defragmentor and JFS does not.
    One thing that fragmentation of a JFS filesystem will have a major effect on is performance of a VMware virtual machine whose image is highly fragmented on JFS. I mentioned this in the wiki article. If you use VMware with a growing image, I recommend somewhat regular defragmenting of the JFS partition, otherwise the VM will be significantly impeded. I imagine this situation is true for other file systems other than JFS. Also, if you torrent frequently with large files, then I would suggest regular JFS defragmenting in this scenario as well.
    Gullible Jones wrote:Re JFS data loss: bug reports have been filed. See here and here.
    The first report is most likely due to the fact that JFS journals metadata only. This is also the case with XFS, Reiser, and ext3 (with the popular journal=writeback implementation). Caching data losses like the first bug report seems to describe what has been known to happen with other file systems on linux and not JFS. Nonetheless, JFS has never hidden the fact that it journals metadata only as journaling both metadata and actual file data incurs a big performance hit.
    The second bug report could easily be a hardware failure. Indeed with both the log and no inodes being dumped to the lost+found directory, I would not jump to judgment that this was necessarily a JFS issue as that would imply JFS failing in SEVERAL different places. It is more likely that the issue was one with hardware.
    As I said before, neither one of these show that JFS conclusively looses files in its own right. If you really require journaling of both metadata and file data, then ext3 is the only option for linux (with no journaling /etc/fstab optimizations); JFS and other journaling file systems don't do this as it significantly reduces performance.
    Anyway, I am done going on about this; if people are hellbent on believing JFS looses files, so be it. Personally, I have never had a data loss issue with JFS despite years of use and abuse in the spectrum of possible hardware and software configurations.
    Last edited by PDExperiment626 (2007-12-29 16:20:36)

  • File loss with JFS

    2 days after transferring my Reiser3.6 LVM based Arch setup to a 160GB disk with JFS partitions, an electrical storm caused a sudden power outage.
    On rebooting, all the .torrent files that Azureus had open, and the list of open tabs in Firefox (Tab Mix Plus option) had been deleted, (a total of around 100 files).
    Until then I had assumed that the files would be restored, possibly out of date but still intact, courtesy of the journalling capabilities of the file system.  Obviously a flawed assumption.
    Has anyone else experienced this behaviour?  Googling on the subjects suggests data loss is possible but for files not to exist anymore appears to make the choice of JFS totally unviable to anyone without a UPS, ie most home users.  It certainly doesn't inspire confidence - restoring backups is one thing, but what about files you don't know have gone?
    Even when using Windows I never experienced this sort of loss, despite several reboots due to the OS crashing frequently.
    None of the reviews I have read have assessed file system reliability after unplanned outages.
    Are there any reliable file system alternatives?

    I've had similar problems in the past when i used Suse (jfs has been their default file choice for a long time).
    Even with clean shutdowns i sometimes had problems with files missing.
    I think it has to do with the delay before journal entries are written to disk in JFS. This increases performance, but decreases reliablility.
    I switched to ext3 and kept ext3 when i started using arch.
    I've been on ext3 for over a year a now and never had  such problems anymore.
    on 1 occasion a visitor stumbled over the cable, shutting down everything forcibly.
    I was downloading 6 torrents in azureus at the time and they all were fine after rebooting.
    Added:
    Opps, my memory failed. Byte is correct, it was REISERFS that gave me those problems, not jfs.

  • Hi i bought a new 500gb hard drive on my 2011 macbook pro, it is a blank hardrive and i forgot to save my other files on an external hard drive , i have a usb stick with mavericks installed on it. can i just go ahead and do a straight install by using it?

    hi i have a macbook pro 2011 model, i decided to upgrade my hardrive and bought a 500gb blank hardrive, my query is because i wasnt able to save most of my files and my operating system to an external hard drive, i have a usb stick with a mavericks os installed on it. will i be able to do a straight install by just doing this method? i will be grateful for any tips or help u might offer, thanks.

    Is it just bootable or does it have the Mavericks installation files on it? If so, yes. If not, no. You might consider getting an external enclosure. Put your old drive in it and boot to its Recovery partition. You can install from there. As a matter of fact, you can run Migration Assistant and get all your stuff over too.
    http://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-2-5-Inch-Aluminum-Enclosure-EC-TB4P/dp/B005EIGUD4/ ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396656137&sr=8-3&keywords=2.5+enclosure

  • Fox4 says that it PREVENTs the user from having two tabs open to the same URL. There are times when I WANT multiple open tabs! Can I override this? (Please tell me. If I can't, then I don't want Fox4. I'll stick with 3.x and NoScript.) Thanks.

    Tell me EXACTLY how to FORCE Fox4 to allow me to have MORE THAN ONE tab open to any given web page.
    Otherwise, I have to stick with Fox3.
    Precise details, please. Thanks.

    # Open a new tab - Ctrl + t
    # Start typing the URL in the awesome bar. The page should displayed in the list below with "Swtich to Tab" written under it
    # Scroll down to the URL in the list using the down arrow key and hit Alt + Enter.
    The webpage is opened a second time instead of simply switching to it. Simple.

  • No sticker with license number Windows XP to Toshiba NB100

    I lost sticker with license number Windows XP to Toshiba NB100. I have an invoice.
    How can I retrieve licence number?
    Authorized service refused to support this topic.

    Hi
    You cannot retrieve the licence number.
    First of all the sticker on the bottom of the unit was an OEM serial key. Such key cannot be used and would not work in connection with fresh installed Win XP system.
    The point is that Toshiba image which was preinstalled on this notebook was already activated and this means that such key was useless.
    I assume you did not create a Toshiba Recovery disk (or flash USB stick) in the past? Right?
    Such disks would reinstall the Toshiba image containing activated Win XP system.
    Well, usually its possible to order such disk [here|http://backupmedia.toshiba.eu/landing.aspx] but I think this would not be possible anymore because of the notebook age.
    Solution: you would need to purchase the Win XP with valid serial key.

  • 08 or stick with 06?

    I haven't published my 08 website yet because I have been reading that there are problems with viewing websites on PC's. Should I stick with my 06 iweb knowing I won't have any compatibility problems? Or should I take the plunge and publish the 08 version? I don't have much time to spend on working through problems, that's why I switched to iweb in the first place. Also, I don't want all of the people that are viewing the site to have to switch to another browser. I'm using the website for showing my school classes. Last year with 06 the parents loved it. Easy is better for them. They are already having to download quicktimeto watch videos of the classes and deal with a few problems there if they are using a PC. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks!

    I have a partition on an external firewire drive that also has a bootable backup on it where I keep the iWeb '06 application and the folders with the domain.sites files.
    iWeb '08 and the folders with the domain.sites2 files are on my Mac.
    To use iWeb '06, I go to System Preferences/System/Start Up Disk, select the partition with iWeb '06 on it and boot from that.
    If you want the applications the other way round you can, first of all, transfer iWeb '06 to an external drive to allow you to install '08 and then switch them.
    I use the application Super Duper to create the bootable backups and, thereafter, to do incremental backups. Although it is a shareware application it will do the bootable backup in the trial mode. You only have to pay if you want the incremental feature - who wouldn't?
    Get it here...
    http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html
    I used to use iWebsites to separate out my domain files but I have gone back to keeping them in separate folders. I have a second Dock to the left of my screen, created using the application Dock-It, in which I keep my main folders. Launching a site takes three clicks and is faster than using iWebsites.

  • I've tried the new iWork and feel cheated. I'm gonna stick with my old '09 version. It appears to have lost utility, and is now easily surpassed by Word 07. Is a new version that's worth the money and hype coming?

    I've tried the new iWork (on a friend's new MacBook Pro) and feel very disappointed. I'm gonna stick with my old '09 version. It appears to have lost utility, and is now easily surpassed by Word 07. Dear Apple, from a veteran user: In your rush to market, you have dropped the basket on this one! Is a new version that's worth the money and hype coming?

    Welcome to Apple Support Communities
    A lot of users have complained about the lack of features of the new iWork version. However, I'm sure Apple will add features with more updates in the future, like with Final Cut Pro X. See > http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6049?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
    Until then, you can carry on using iWork '09, or try Microsoft Office 2011 or even LibreOffice, which is free and open-source

  • Worth upgrading to Mountain Lion or stick with Snow Leopard?

    A few weeks ago some of you helped me navigate the pros/cons of buying a spanking new Imac vs a mid 2011 (I decided the 2011 was plenty worthy).   I thank you for that, and now I want to ask: if I were to get a mid 2011 Imac, is it worth to upgrade to the latest OS, or is sticking with Snow Leopard (my current OS) fine?
    I'm using some older software like FCP 6 and its associated suite of programs, and probably plenty of other applications I'm not thinking of at the moment, that I got back in '08 or so when I got the Imac I have now.   I think I've heard that Lion/Mountain is a total overhaul of the OS compared to Snow Leopard, and that makes me wonder if there are compatibility issues/problems associated with trying to use these older pieces of software with the new OS.  What are the super amazing benefits of Lion or Mountain Lion vs Snow Leopard?  Are they worth it?  Do the aforementioned issues exist? Thanks.

    Someone else will need to answer your Time Machine question because I do not use it. It may work because it should port over all the applications, settings, etc. I was going on the assumption that you would be reinstalling your apps from scratch (I guess I thought that because that is what I did - I wanted as clean an install as possible). Anyway, TM should just transfer things - just remember, if any of those transferred apps have PPC installers and you get rid of your Snow Leopard machine, you'll never be able to reinstall them.
    You might want to check these links (and by doing a search here on the forums, there'll be more):
    https://discussions.apple.com/message/18179294#18179294
    https://discussions.apple.com/message/16964725#16964725
    https://discussions.apple.com/message/17434537#17434537

  • Problems reading USB memory sticks with OS 10.9

    Cannot read USB memory sticks with current version of OS 10.9.1 that I previously read without any problem.  What gives?  Any way to fix this problem?  I have lots of work and other material saved on the memory sticks that I need access to this quarter.

    Do a backup, using either Time Machine or a cloning program, to ensure files/data can be recovered. Two backups are better than one.
    Try setting up another admin user account to see if the same problem continues. If Back-to-My Mac is selected in System Preferences, the Guest account will not work. The intent is to see if it is specific to one account or a system wide problem. This account can be deleted later.
    Isolating an issue by using another user account

  • Windows 8.1 pro with cs6 masters.   or should i stick with windows 7 pro?

    i am building a new pc and considering using windows 8.1 pro with cs6 masters.  has anyone had any issues or should i stick with windows 7 pro?

    Hi Tedm,
    Please check the system requirement for CS6 Master Collection in the below mentioned link.
    System requirements | Adobe Creative Suite 6
    For more info or clarification you can contact our chat support as well : Adobe - Contact Support – Download and Installation
    Thanks!
    Eshant

  • HT1349 Hello, how to move the iTunes master file from C drive to an external drive and them iTunes stick with the external drive after on an on going basic?

    My desktop C drive is full HD of 1 TB, I would like to move the current iTunes master file to an external 4TB drive and then iTunes stick with the external drive
    Could this be done, if yes how to do it?
    Thank you for your help
    Henri

    If it's the same as with a PC, the procedure would be to:
    (a) Plug in the new external drive,
    (b) Set your iTunes preferences such that the iTunes Music Folder is on the new drive,
    (c) Use the iTunes "Consolidate Library" utility to copy your library to the new location.
    (d) When the transfer is complete, check "Get Info" on some songs to verify their location.
    The original files will remain on the old drive, so you'll have a way to recover should there be a problem. You may need to manually copy any iPhone/Touch Apps to the new drive since I'm not sure those are transferred with the Consolidate utility.

  • Using an UMTS stick with airport extreme

    Hallo,
    my internet access is actually working only via an umts stick. Can i put this stick into airport express or extreme in order to have a kind of airport wlan for two macs or do i have to connect one of theme and get access via internet sharing?
    Thanks in advance
    Matthias

    The USB port on the AirPort Extreme will support a hard drive and/or a printer while the USB port on an AirPort Express will work only with compatible printers (and a Keyspan remote for PowerPoint presentations), so you will not be able to use your "stick" with the AirPorts.

  • Sticking with Lion for now.

    Based on all the trouble that people are having, and based on all the issues that people went through, including me, when upgrading to Lion, I am sticking with Lion for a while.
    Lion is stable enough for me and whatever quirks and speed issues that might remain are not enough to make me torture myself and wreck my system for now.
    I'll wait for 10.8.4 at least. I can't imagine all the people having trouble are novices.
    Is this what Apple expects? Its users to find out what's wrong with their OS?

    Mountain Lion upgrade from Lion on three Macs went
    just fine.  Prior to upgrade, made sure all apps were
    updated (or upgraded) to most recent versions available.
    Did checks to insure all hard drives were in good shape.
    Most importantly, backed up all data and also created clones
    of each system, so if there were problems, return to normalcy
    would be quick.
    The systems:
    2011 Mac Mini Server (without Server)
    early 2011 13" 2.7GHz i7 Macbook Pro
    mid 2010 Mac Mini used as HTPC

Maybe you are looking for