[Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
tobias.bluhm at philips.com
Thu Oct 6 15:01:50 GMT 2005
While I don't know all distros, I don't know of any that doesn't support
ext2/3. I can't say that about xfs, jfs, reiserfs. That's what I meant by
standard. SuSE's "default" or "preferred" fs maybe reiser, but I would be
surprised to find out they took out ext2/3 support.
philips medical systems, cleveland ohio
tobias.bluhm at philips.com
Ryan Kather <rkather at missionpenguin.com>
samba-bounces+tobias.bluhm=philips.com at lists.samba.org
10/06/2005 09:28 AM
samba at lists.samba.org
Re: [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
EXT3 is a good filesystem, but I wouldn't say it's the standard for
Linux. That largely depends on what distribution you use. For example,
SuSE's standard is ReiserFS 3.6. Reiser is great for lots of small
files, but yes EXT3 is better in general.
Reiser4 is very high performance though, if speed is your ultimate
concern. However, Reiser4 is not presently supported in the standard
Linux kernel, is very bleeding edge, and there is some degree of
political fallout regarding its take on "plugins".
That being said, I've had good luck with it personally, but don't yell
at me if a bug in it causes data loss!
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 09:10 -0400, 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
> 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
> partial feature set, reiserfs seems to be made for one thing - a
> 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
> 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 &
> Disclaimer: I could be very wrong about the current status of things
> outside my little world.
> toby bluhm
> philips medical systems, cleveland ohio
> tobias.bluhm at philips.com
> Sean W <nameneeded at gmail.com>
> Sent by:
> samba-bounces+tobias.bluhm=philips.com at lists.samba.org
> 10/06/2005 03:26 AM
> samba at lists.samba.org
> [Samba] Re: what's the best filesystem
> Actually, I am setting up an Ubuntu 5.04 box tomorrow as a Samba server
> (right after I figure out how to disable the raid controller). Do you
> suggest xfs? I've been reading this thread and people seem positive on
> it, but are there negatives as well?
> James Peach wrote:
> > On 10/6/05, Eric A. Hall <ehall at ehsco.com> wrote:
> >>On 10/4/2005 7:17 PM, mourik jan c heupink wrote:
> >>>I like xfs, specially with quota. (and using acl's here as well)
> >>>with xfs you never have to run the check_quota (or whatever the
> >>>is...) This makes a rebooting after a crash *much* faster.
> >>that was one of the things I liked about, and replaying the journal
> >>nice too.
> >>one of the problems I had a couple of years back was that it wasn't
> >>bootable (had to boot a mini-kernel off a fat partition, then load the
> >>modules). they've fixed that buy now I assume.
> > That might depend on yr distro. I've used XFS root partitions on
> > Ubuntu 5.04, SLES9 and OpenSUSE without any problems.
> > --
> > James Peach | jorgar at gmail.com
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
More information about the samba