RE: [SLE] SuSE 8.1 Pro which filesystem to use ?
I've been using reiserfs for a while and it seems to perform good. I don't believe I've lost a file yet with the locks I've had on my machine. I don't think it is as fast as ext2 though. I'm considering switching to ext3 because it has been reported that it is overall better performing and the bugs have been ironed out. I've also heard that ext3 and reiserfs are equivalent in regular use. I think the selling point for me is the ability to convert my existing ext2 partitions to ext3 painlessly. :) Jonathan Paul Cowherd Linux and Java Administrator Genscape, Inc. Email: jonathan.cowherd@genscape.com Office: (502) 583-3730 Mobile: (502) 314-0444 -----Original Message----- From: Sean Akers [mailto:sean@akers-online.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:08 PM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: [SLE] SuSE 8.1 Pro which filesystem to use ? My 8.1 pro arrived today so I'll be busy installing it tomorrow. I do have a question, however. I read the section on file systems and I'm afraid I'm still at a loss as to which one to use. My Linux machine is a server running an AMD K6/2-500 on an FIC VA-503+ mobo with a Promise Ultra-66 controller and 256Mb RAM. It has 5 HDs drives of various sizes. Currently these are all formatted using ext2. When I get the inevitable power cut and my machine reboots having not been shut down properly , it can take forever to fsck all these drives (they are all large and full of data). So, I've been considering using one of the alternative file systems which are now available to me using 8.1. I've read the manual and am still unsure which would be the best option, ReiserFS, XFS, ext3 or JFS. They all seem to have pros and cons but I cannot decide which is the best for me. My machine acts as a Windows file server, a development machine, an internet server and firewall, a printer server, tape backup server and a groupware server. I need a file system to be robust and not lose any data due to unexpected power cuts, I also need it to be reasonably quick and I'd like the machine to reboot quickly if there is a power failure. XFS looked good in the manual with it being quick but it sounds memory intensive and it says it can easily lose data if shut down unexpectedly. ReiserFS and JFS don't journal file data, only metadata. Ext3 is easy to upgrade to but I get the idea that it doesn't perform too well. Can anyone give me their experiences with these different file systems so I can make a more educated decision. Sean Akers. ----- Sean Akers: sean@akers-online.co.uk -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
Hello SuSE folkz, Could somebody recommend me please what FS should be used for SQL database partition. I want to run MySQL DB on my server and it has following options: 1. MySQL database can handle a raw device partition to store and organize the data. 2. MySQL can store InnoDB table data in a large data files on the top of existing FS. Which method is more preferable and what journaling FS is more suitable to handle datafiles of 500 MB each? Thank you in advance Alex
On Tuesday, 01 October 2002 18:21, you wrote:
I've been using reiserfs for a while and it seems to perform good. I don't believe I've lost a file yet with the locks I've had on my machine. I don't think it is as fast as ext2 though.
Hi! Linux Magazine, October 2002: Steve Best, discussing Journaling File Systems: page 27: The downside of Ext3? It's an add-on to Ext2, so it still has the same limitations that Ext2 has. Then, page 28: One of the unique advantages of ReiserFS is support for /small/ files -- lots and lots of small files .... ReiserFS is about eight to fifteen times faster than Ext2 at handling files smaller than 1K. On the same page, there are tables comparing Ext3, ReiserFS, XFS and JFS. -- Regards, gr (in /usually/ balmy, sunny Florida's Suncoast) [powered by SuSE-7.3 Linux 2.4.10]
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 18:21, Jonathan Cowherd wrote:
I've been using reiserfs for a while and it seems to perform good. I don't believe I've lost a file yet with the locks I've had on my machine. I don't think it is as fast as ext2 though.
I'm considering switching to ext3 because it has been reported that it is overall better performing and the bugs have been ironed out. I've also heard that ext3 and reiserfs are equivalent in regular use. I think the selling point for me is the ability to convert my existing ext2 partitions to ext3 painlessly. :)
Listen, ext3 is fine for servers and gives faster better results for serving out nfs shares IMO. However, if you are planning on putting SuSE on a laptop ever as a workstation style install I would go with reiserfs simply because ext3 insists on doing a long filesystem check every 30 mounts or so. Also, recovery on a reiserfs after a system goes down seems to be faster but both are terribly consistent. Either one can survive a hard reboot with little problems. -- Johnathan Bailes BAE Systems ESI "UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn ---
You can use the tune2fs(8) command to adjust your parameters. By default, ext2 (and ext3) file systems are set with a maximum number of mounts as well as a time interval. You can use tune2fs(8) to change or turn these off. On 2 Oct 2002 at 7:19, Johnathan Bailes wrote:
Listen, ext3 is fine for servers and gives faster better results for serving out nfs shares IMO. However, if you are planning on putting SuSE on a laptop ever as a workstation style install I would go with reiserfs simply because ext3 insists on doing a long filesystem check every 30 mounts or so. Also, recovery on a reiserfs after a system goes down seems to be faster but both are terribly consistent. Either one can survive a hard reboot with little problems.
-- Johnathan Bailes BAE Systems ESI
"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn ---
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
-- Jerry Feldman <gerald.feldman@hp.com> Enterprise Systems Group Hewlett-Packard Company 200 Forest Street MRO1-3/F1 Marlboro, Ma. 01752 508-467-4315 http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/linux/
What FS reiser or ext3 is more suitable to handle large files, for example SQL DB data files which may be 500MB or more in size? Thanks. Alex
Listen, ext3 is fine for servers and gives faster better results for serving out nfs shares IMO. However, if you are planning on putting SuSE on a laptop ever as a workstation style install I would go with reiserfs simply because ext3 insists on doing a long filesystem
check
every 30 mounts or so. Also, recovery on a reiserfs after a system goes down seems to be faster but both are terribly consistent. Either one can survive a hard reboot with little problems.
-- Johnathan Bailes BAE Systems ESI
"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn ---
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le Mercredi 2 Octobre 2002 16:41, Alex Daniloff a écrit :
reiserfs simply because ext3 insists on doing a long filesystem check every 30 mounts or so.
Out of curiosity, why does ext3 do that? That's exactly what ext2 does to "take care of itself" without journalizing... It shouldn't be necessary with ext3, should it? - -- Thibaut Cousin email : cousin@in2p3.fr web : http://clrwww.in2p3.fr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9mxUkv1vqsTa1E4oRAn6jAJ4y9URWO2GvPX5ZS234MzlpxjLqIQCeMS/c XAu4+0oaJpcBC4cL5pMP6iQ= =FT/S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It is philosophical. It may be in the man pages somewhere, but even with ext3, they like to run full fscks every so often. On my desktop system, I have a couple of file systems I keep unmounted. I recently upgraded them to ext3, and at the same time change the mount and the intervals so that then will not need checking for about a year. On 2 Oct 2002 at 17:47, Thibaut Cousin wrote:
Out of curiosity, why does ext3 do that? That's exactly what ext2 does to "take care of itself" without journalizing... It shouldn't be necessary with ext3, should it?
-- Jerry Feldman <gerald.feldman@hp.com> Enterprise Systems Group Hewlett-Packard Company 200 Forest Street MRO1-3/F1 Marlboro, Ma. 01752 508-467-4315 http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/linux/
participants (6)
-
Alex Daniloff -
gilson redrick -
Jerry Feldman -
Johnathan Bailes -
Jonathan Cowherd -
Thibaut Cousin