Printable View
I have done Linux to some extent. I just want to know what file system the fastest and most reliable among all those available with Linux. I am using Mandriva One 2008 and I started thinking it as ext3 would be the best choice, but without really knowing why.:biggrin: So, here, is that the BTF is so bad, is what other Linux file systems is worth all and all ... I am assuming that you members must have got what I want to say.?! Please help me by providing some good information. :notworthy
There are interesting articles on the topic comparing the performance of different file systems. I advise you to go take a peek. Basically each file system has its advantages and disadvantages for given needs. Generally Ext3 is a good average for a common application type desktop computer, but others such as XFS FS are also interesting. A view based on what you do with your PC:whistling
EXT3 is an excellent choice for a personal computer and for most uses (even on the servers). Personally, I use another file system (XFS mostly) or I touch the default options only for very specific server (file server specialized, individual web servers, etc.) Anyway, nowadays, when tuning up a server's local storage is to be taken into account is increasingly rare "due" ("thanks" instead) SAN solutions.Quote:
I have done Linux to some extent. I just want to know what file system the fastest and most reliable among all those available with Linux. I am using Mandriva One 2008 and I started thinking it as ext3 would be the best choice, but without really knowing why.
If you speak of NTFS, well ... uh ... it is not bad but ... hum. He has good overall functionality but especially for huge gaps that make it unworthy of a filesystem under 15 years ... Nothing but the need to defragment as often for purposes quite common is ridiculous on the part of the company's computer world's richest ... It's really making fun of the mouth of the world. Besides performance "average" or the impossibility there is still little until the resize with formal tools. And I speak not of ridicule on clamping the maximum possible size of a partition or the maximum size of a file.
Fragmentation does not come from the filesystem, but Windows, which for historical reasons of speed, prefer to write to the nearest (to fill the holes as and when they arise) than to seek the best possible location. Windows fragment when it wrote about the ext2.
yeah ... actually the file system itself can go up but the implementation in Windows is limited to 256To for 16TB max file size ... For large databases current, it starts to become just ... It is not a problem, since windows is used for the poor domain servers but when you have serious needs, we switch to Linux or Unix. Things that make me laugh with NTFS, it limits the size of the file name or size of the paths is laughable nowadays. Not to mention the amount of characters allowed ... The top of the file system is ZFS Free today and we consider that it has no limits in size max (no limit achievable in the present state of our knowledge of physics).
Windows being the only official implementation, for me, it makes no difference. On Linux, the file system as "classical" (ie the most versatile) has perfs at least as good as NTFS and yet it hardly breaks (at least, it's tiny next to NTFS). For a box that claims to be the most innovative sector which spends hundreds of millions of dollars in R & D, AC ****s super bad either?Quote:
Fragmentation does not come from the filesystem, but Windows, which for historical reasons of speed, prefer to write to the nearest (to fill the holes as and when they arise) than to seek the best possible location. Windows fragment when it wrote about the ext2.
In fact, I checked and I'm JFS. I went through the link Zulnov gave me and it turns out that the XFS seems most interesting. Ext3 is the rather slow. That said, thank you for your responses. Apparently, You've pretty against the system file allocation of Microsoft Corporation, lol. But it looks to me to be justified, always. And fragmentation, I saw that there are utilities to do Linux, I downloaded one but it does not work. Maybe he just did it for the ext2 or 3, I do not know. Already, it is necessary under Linux and if so, what can me utilitarian take and where to find it? Yes, I am very demanding ...
NTFS is not so rotten that I suggest. It is obvious that if you ask me the problems, I'll talk about problems and not qualities. So AC suggests that we're no defects found that while it is not true. NTFS has great features that make it a very high level of FS. What I see is that he has problems of its rating features that make it very problematic for the prod ... And it is intolerable for a FS this level and for a producer who has so many ways. It's really not necessary with Linux. Even with a file server requests in writing and extremely in need of deletion has only very rarely defrag (all 3 / 4 years ... and again) then for a personal machine is not even bother to think about it. Your disk will fail thee and migrates to a new drive before you need to defrag.