[Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem

Dennis Veatch dveatch at woh.rr.com
Thu Oct 6 13:24:34 GMT 2005

On Thursday 06 October 2005 09:10 am, Tobias Bluhm wrote:
> I gotta put my vote in for ext3. While it is slower than the other fs's:
> - It's robust. I've researched this & it seems you can bash ext3/2 pretty
> hard & still recover data. I saw too many stories of lost data on the
> other fs's for my liking.
> - It's fully supported. ACL, xattr, quota, LVM snapshots, shrink, grow,
> mount unjournaled, etc. xfs is a port from IRIX, jfs seems to have only a
> partial feature set, reiserfs seems to be made for one thing - a sh*tload
> of small files.
> - It's widely supported. It's the standard fs for Linux.
> As with just about anything, fast hardware, plenty of RAM & proper tuning
> will get the most out of your system. Why not setup various tests for
> yourself - we've used iometer ( www.iometer.org ) recently. My little
> hodge-podge of hardware made out fairly well against the "enterprise"
> systems here.
> Just my 2 cents serving ~ 2TB of ext3 on LVM on sw raid over NFS & Samba.
> Disclaimer: I could be very wrong about the current status of things
> outside my little world.

I don't know. ext2/3 has been around for a long time and I'm sure it's very 
reliable and I use ext2 for /boot. However, I have used reiserfs for /, /home 
and /var for a very long time, 2+years and not had any problems with it. 

I have used it with the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels without issue of any kind. One 
machine an old IBM PC Server 330 with built in hardware raid has a 6 disk 
raid (0,5?, hee been so long now I'd have to look) setup for samba and not 
had any issues with it. The machine has lost power in several ways and it 
gets all sorts of stuff installed and removed, copied and deleted. In all 
reiserfs have been very good for me.

As with all things YMMV.

More information about the samba mailing list