ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

presently42 (Bugzilla)
Hallo friendly list:

I've decided that windows has to go and a swap has to come. So, I'm a gonna clear the hard drive of my Toshiba satellite A70 laptop and give myself a new start on life. Now, I've been looking about some. It seems that ext3 or xfs are the best filesystems, with /boot being on a seperate ext2 partition using xfs (do I need to do this?). Is this true? Is it true of a laptop which I use for every day desktop purposes? I hear also that xfs is a pain to deal with if the system crashes. Is this true? How so? Finally, I've heard of zfs. Is this worth looking in to more?

I know that this is A: been done to death and D: really... shall we say, open ended.... But, I should dearly like to have the lists opinions on this.

Thanks much.

--
—A watched bread-crumb never boils.
—My hover-craft is full of eels.
—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Alvin Oga

hi ya david

- this must be a test from tonights svlug.org meeting

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David R. Litwin wrote:

> Hallo friendly list:

> I've decided that windows has to go and a swap has to come. So, I'm a
> gonna clear the hard drive of my Toshiba satellite A70 laptop and give
> myself a new start on life.

for yoour laptop

use ext3 ( according to val hanson )

> Now, I've been looking about some. It seems that ext3 or
> xfs are the best filesystems,

depending  on who is doing the talking ...

redhat likes ext3..... why ... "just because"
suse likes reiserfs... why ... "just because"  ( same reasoning )
sgi likes xfs ........ why ... "just because"
ibm likes jfs ........ why ... "just because"

other fs ... we'll skip over for now

"just because" is that they paid real $$$ for somebody to work on it
inhouse or outside

> with /boot being on a seperate ext2
> partition using xfs (do I need to do this?). Is this true?

that is confusing ..

/boot should NEVER be a sepearate partition in todays machines
unless you are booting directly into memory or lvm or crypto or
other distro that does not run on real disks

use /boot if you have one of them old old thingies ( old bios )
that is stuck in the days of not knowing how to read past the first
512MB of disk

what fs yiou use on which partition would depend on what you are
doing with the system  .. there is no clear generic answer

so if they didn't say why xxx is better than yyy ... than their
comment is /dev/null

why one fs is better than another is at least days worth of tutorials
or 30 years of ongoing fs discussions that has resulted in just a handful
of fs ...

> Is it true of a laptop which I use for every day desktop purposes?

is what true ...

laptop is notorious for behing thrown around and dropped...

you have a choice of using smething that can recover itself
with fs repair tools or not ... that leaves you with just ext3
as a fairly reasonably recoverable fs from "disk crashes" or power failure

> I hear also that xfs is a pain to deal with if the system crashes.

ALL fs is a pain to deal with if the system crashes
or if you do not have a mouse/keyboard/monitor on the pc/server

xfs is not any better/worst than jfs, reiserfs

ext3 has better recovery tools than the above beause you can use
(15-20 yr old ) ext2 repair tools to recover ext3 fs

> Is this true? How so?

lots of reading for weeks at a time ...

> Finally, I've heard of zfs. Is this worth looking in to more?

if you like to beat your head more ... do look into zfs ...
but its unlikely you'll find anything useful in the public ...

-------

for more fs fun and fs comparisons and beaten bushes
        http://Linux-Sec.net/FS

c ya
alvin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Ron Johnson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya david
>
> - this must be a test from tonights svlug.org meeting
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David R. Litwin wrote:
>
[snip]
> /boot should NEVER be a sepearate partition in todays machines
> unless you are booting directly into memory or lvm or crypto or
> other distro that does not run on real disks

Please justify the strong word "NEVER".

"NEVER ... unless" is a contradiction.

[snip]
> ext3 has better recovery tools than the above beause you can use
> (15-20 yr old ) ext2 repair tools to recover ext3 fs

Please also justify this.  ext2 was released in 1993.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEh9RGS9HxQb37XmcRAm/+AJ9zsDP1K7vMpb6KiO2YvjK5YiuKfACfXzZB
WNJrvUN8S9O1F/vIvQHOmrQ=
=u43y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by presently42 (Bugzilla)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David R. Litwin wrote:
> Hallo friendly list:
>
> I've decided that windows has to go and a swap has to come. So, I'm a gonna
> clear the hard drive of my Toshiba satellite A70 laptop and give myself a
> new start on life. Now, I've been looking about some. It seems that ext3 or
> xfs are the best filesystems, with /boot being on a seperate ext2 partition
> using xfs (do I need to do this?). Is this true? Is it true of a laptop
> which I use for every day desktop purposes? I hear also that xfs is a pain
> to deal with if the system crashes. Is this true?

For simplicity, IMHO, stick with ext3, since it's the most widely
used fs and therefore (a) the most debugged, and (b) has good
maintenance tools.

reiserfs is great if you are going to have lots of small files.  On
a mail server, for example.

xfs is great for *huge* files.  Video/audio editing, running a PVR, etc.

I set up the partitions in this order:
/boot  50MB
/      12*GB*  (this strongly depends on how big your drive is)
/home  the balance of the space on the drive.

Note that there are no swap partitions.  This is because I use swap
*files*, which give you much more flexibility.  (In case you add
more RAM later, you just add another swapfile, whereas with
partitions, you're stuck with your initial partition map.)

>                                                  How so? Finally, I've
> heard of zfs. Is this worth looking in to more?

zfs, I'm 99.9% sure, is only implemented on Solaris.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEh9cZS9HxQb37XmcRAl7VAJ93UFTpHfzxcbUIsjDfd7Yw9Bbe1QCfWroF
UYIJw4e2uIwByCPcRJfNdl8=
=A0+U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Alvin Oga
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson

hi ya ron

> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > /boot should NEVER be a sepearate partition in todays machines
> > unless you are booting directly into memory or lvm or crypto or
> > other distro that does not run on real disks
>
> Please justify the strong word "NEVER".
>
> "NEVER ... unless" is a contradiction.

it can be a contradiction if one does not recognize the "except"
and want to use it against never ...

> [snip]
> > ext3 has better recovery tools than the above beause you can use
> > (15-20 yr old ) ext2 repair tools to recover ext3 fs
>
> Please also justify this.  ext2 was released in 1993.
 
"released" and and it had zero time in development ??

c ya
alvin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

michf
In reply to this post by presently42 (Bugzilla)
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 01:21:17 -0400
"David R. Litwin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hallo friendly list:
>
> I've decided that windows has to go and a swap has to come. So, I'm a gonna
> clear the hard drive of my Toshiba satellite A70 laptop and give myself a
> new start on life. Now, I've been looking about some. It seems that ext3 or
> xfs are the best filesystems, with /boot being on a seperate ext2 partition
> using xfs (do I need to do this?). Is this true? Is it true of a laptop
> which I use for every day desktop purposes? I hear also that xfs is a pain
> to deal with if the system crashes. Is this true? How so? Finally, I've
> heard of zfs. Is this worth looking in to more?
>

Personally I use reiserfs. I crashed the system several times (my fault, bad
experimentation with suspend and such). It recovered quite nicely with the
reiserfs tools.

My machine also occasionally turns of without shutting down (several reasons,
mostly my fault) and recovers nicely and quickly on restart.

ext3, reiserfs and xfs all support laptop-mode which is also nice to save
battery life.

The main advantage of ext3 is that it can be accessed as a ext2 partition when
needed.

> I know that this is A: been done to death and D: really... shall we say,
> open ended.... But, I should dearly like to have the lists opinions on this.
>
> Thanks much.
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Hendrik Boom-2
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:51:53AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> Note that there are no swap partitions.  This is because I use swap
> *files*, which give you much more flexibility.  (In case you add
> more RAM later, you just add another swapfile, whereas with
> partitions, you're stuck with your initial partition map.)

The only reason I used a swap partition on at least one of my machines
is that the installer refused to proceed unless I created a swap
partition.

-- hendrik


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Hendrik Boom-2
In reply to this post by michf
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:44:33PM +0300, Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 01:21:17 -0400
>
> Personally I use reiserfs. I crashed the system several times (my fault, bad
> experimentation with suspend and such). It recovered quite nicely with the
> reiserfs tools.
>
> My machine also occasionally turns of without shutting down (several reasons,
> mostly my fault) and recovers nicely and quickly on restart.

I use reiser.  And quotas.  It only quotas could recover as fast.

-- hendrik


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Jon Dowland-4
In reply to this post by Hendrik Boom-2
At 1149759444 past the epoch, [hidden email] wrote:
> The only reason I used a swap partition on at least one of
> my machines is that the installer refused to proceed
> unless I created a swap partition.

The debian-installer?

--
Jon Dowland
http://alcopop.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Greg Folkert
In reply to this post by presently42 (Bugzilla)
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 01:21 -0400, David R. Litwin wrote:

> Hallo friendly list:
>
> I've decided that windows has to go and a swap has to come. So, I'm a
> gonna clear the hard drive of my Toshiba satellite A70 laptop and give
> myself a new start on life. Now, I've been looking about some. It
> seems that ext3 or xfs are the best filesystems, with /boot being on a
> seperate ext2 partition using xfs (do I need to do this?). Is this
> true? Is it true of a laptop which I use for every day desktop
> purposes? I hear also that xfs is a pain to deal with if the system
> crashes. Is this true? How so? Finally, I've heard of zfs. Is this
> worth looking in to more?
>
> I know that this is A: been done to death and D: really... shall we
> say, open ended.... But, I should dearly like to have the lists
> opinions on this.
I have had very bad luck with reiserfs v3.5/.6, I have not tried any
v4.xxx of the filesystem format.

Infact, I have completely gone away from reiser as a filesystem of
choice. And will not be *USING* any reiserfs in production, period. At
least until some proof of "losing the tree root, thereby orphaning all
leaf objects" is *NOT* possible or theoretically/statistically
impossible.

That leaves three(3) choices:

        JFS, XFS, EXT3:
               
                JFS is a very mature excellent filesystem, this
                particular version in Linux comes from OS/2, where it
                has been used and considered the defacto standard if you
                need a file-system with journals (most OS/2 machine
                nowadays are appliances, due to marginalization of
                OS/2). JFS does suffer from some limitations when
                dealing with certain situations on certain types of
                files (thousands and thousands of small files, sometimes
                exceptionally HUGE files as well). Also isn't as
                flexible when dealing with ACLs.
               
                EXT3 is a very mature and very well known set of specs.
                It is the safest bet. But also arguably the slowest of
                the 3. Slow is a relative term though. Slow could be
                fast enough as you'll never notice. Or it could be so
                bad, it makes you scream everytime you try to run
                OpenOffice.org or Firefox with tons of extensions.
                Really has only the stigma "EXT2 with Journals bolted
                on" badmouthing and slowness to deal with. Excellent ACL
                support, should you use them. Sparse Large file support
                can be suspect at times, but only in very rare
                circumstance.
               
                XFS is mature, not as well documented, not as well
                supported by utilities and it the "up and coming"
                file-system of choice. This is SGIs implemetation of the
                journaled file-system. It is exceptionally fast, light
                weight with very good ACL support (treated as meta-data,
                making it indexable and very fast to access). But GRUB
                has a huge problem with xfs. During the placement of the
                grub support files on the filesystem, it calls the
                "xfs_freeze" function and potentially can cause a hard
                lock of the system. There is the reason for either using
                LILO as the boot manager (/me hatessss the LILO for many
                reassssons) or use a small ext2/3 /boot filesystem and
                partition for grub support (or reiserfs or JFS etc...).
                Since I am one of the fuddites that still prefer a
                separate /boot partition, this is of zero consequence to
                me. In fact this is what *I DO DO* (hehehe I wrote DO
                DO) for every workstation/desktop/laptop/server I setup
                nowaday.

My choices are nearly always a bit on the sharp side of the edge... but
XFS has been my choice for more than 1.5 years now. I see this for the
foreseeable future as my choice and will continue until I see something
better.
       

--
greg, [hidden email]

The technology that is
Stronger, Better, Faster: Linux

Use Debian GNU/Linux, its a bazaar thing

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the
National Security Agency may have read this email
without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly
without probable cause. They may do this without
any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
recourse nor protection.

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Nate Bargmann
In reply to this post by presently42 (Bugzilla)
* David R. Litwin <[hidden email]> [2006 Jun 08 00:26 -0500]:
> Hallo friendly list:
>
> I know that this is A: been done to death and D: really... shall we say, open
> ended.... But, I should dearly like to have the lists opinions on this.

In almost ten years of use, I've never lost any data due to any EXT2/3
problems.  I have been able to recover data from two hard drives that
crashed.  One just last week that crashed badly enough that I couldn't
do anything with it until I turned it upside down.  I did lose one file
from the home directory, one that is easily recoverable from the Wed.

I've lost much more data at work due to drive failure on Windows
machines that the admins could not recover (NTFS).

- Nate >>

--
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB          |  Successfully Microsoft
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | free since January 1998.
             http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/           |  "Debian, the choice of
             My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @            |     a GNU generation!"
        http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/       |   http://www.debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
In reply to this post by presently42 (Bugzilla)
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, David R. Litwin wrote:
> new start on life. Now, I've been looking about some. It seems that ext3 or
> xfs are the best filesystems, with /boot being on a seperate ext2 partition

Go with ext3. It is *far* more resilient if you ever hit trouble, and you
will lose less data.

--
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Tom Vier
In reply to this post by presently42 (Bugzilla)
I just wanted to add to this thread that ext3 has had its share of problems,
too. I believe it is stable now, however. I've been using reiserfs for
several years, on several machines, and never lost any data.

ext3 and reiserfs have notable advantage over jfs and xfs: they both support
data=ordered. jfs and xfs are the equivilent of data=writeback. You can end
up with files ending with a bunch of zeros, etc - writeback mode only
protects metadata structures. You can lose some file data. Ordered mode will
not update block pointers, bitmaps, etc until the data has been written.

jfs is nice on older machines were low latency isn't an issue. jfs sucks for
using xmms (so does ext3). xfs is better. xfs is more cpu intensive, and it's
a much bigger module, but has delayed allocation and seems to have lower
latency (no stuttering when xmms plays a flac and another reader is active).

ext3 does physical block journalling, instead of just logical journalling.
It typcally uses more journal space per transaction, but physical journal
does allow merging when several changes are made to the same block (changes
that don't have interdependency on changing other blocks). The advantage of
phys journalling is that if the drive loses power during a write to a
metadata block (corrupting the sector), ext3 will rewrite the whole block
during recovery. Mid-write failures are more likely on some drives than
others. They cause a read error until the sector is rewritten with a good
crc.

--
Tom Vier <[hidden email]>
DSA Key ID 0x15741ECE


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
In reply to this post by Greg Folkert
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Greg Folkert wrote:
>                 making it indexable and very fast to access). But GRUB
>                 has a huge problem with xfs. During the placement of the
>                 grub support files on the filesystem, it calls the
>                 "xfs_freeze" function and potentially can cause a hard

XFS will not flush itself to disk entirely on sync() as far as I know (see
#317479).  You need to fsync() everything you touch, and you need to be able
#to *read* and *replay* xfs
logs to boot if xfs is not shutdown safely before it flushes itself.

Avoid xfs on /boot and /, it is easier on your heart...  and *never*
hibernate XFS if you are going to need the data in that partition *before*
fully waking up... (and you always need / and /boot if you
suspend-to-disk...)

--
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Jon Dowland-4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jon Dowland wrote:
> At 1149759444 past the epoch, [hidden email] wrote:
>> The only reason I used a swap partition on at least one of
>> my machines is that the installer refused to proceed
>> unless I created a swap partition.
>
> The debian-installer?

My question exactly.  Both the Woody and October 2005 Etch d-i let
me install w/o a swap partition.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEiJZ7S9HxQb37XmcRAlDZAJ44RK2CgOTquMzVccycw2yoqqCe1ACgqORU
8Q0rk2IcPxmKjpu/JEGx4To=
=mwEE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

presently42 (Bugzilla)
Let me start thus: I've gotten so much valuable feed-back that it is illogical to do my normal shuffle-post. Hopefully what I write shan't be woefully out of context. Here goes.

I appologise that I neglected to give you the specs of my system, dolt that I am. The laptop has a  3.06 GHz Mobile P4 with (newly upgraded!) 1024MB RAM (minus the shared video ram which I can't adjust, for some reasdon.... But, that is neither hither, nor yon.). It is capable of hyper-threading, so I use smp. Fiinally, the hard-drive has around 80GB of storage.

It seems to me, still, that though XFS is faster (en general! Don't lop off my head for making a blanket statement!) and may become the standard at some point, ext3 is currently the most stable and reliable. I'm still not clear over the controvesy of having an ext2 /boot partition and an XFS / partition: Why shouldn't I do this (if I choose to use XFS) given that I do use GrUB? However, I am inclined, in this realm, to go with stability (shocking for those who know me: I'm a compulsive up-grader and have become one who uses svn / cvs for my most-used applications. Logical, eh? I love the Bleeding edge). In the past, this poor computer of mine has gone through a lot of turmoil. I've rebooted (both properly and using "The Button") enough that I worry a bit over how much damage I've done to it (what is this non-contiguous business that I see when fsck is run? It was once .somthing& and is now 5.9% I think.). Since I've heard good things about crash restoration (this laptop does crash) for ext3 and... not so good for XFS, I think the former is safer.

The swap business. To partition or to have... files? What are the pros and cons (feel free to link to a howto or tell me to do so)? Indeed, should I even _bother_ with a swap? Will it make that much of a difference? I haven't got one currenlty (not of my choice), but I don't know if there has been a decline in performance due to this.

Finally, I know that there can be no absolutely correct choice. I'm simply trying to get the best for my computer. I do _listen_ to a lot of music (an increasing amount in flac). But, I do not edit much. So, big files? Eh.... The biggest would be the music and an ocasional film / T. V. series (which I plan to watch more on my laptop, actually.)

I hope this helps. I know certainly that your comments are making this much easier for me.

Cheers.

P. S.: Partitioner-wise: My friend reccomended I stick GParted on to a CD and use that. Is this the best programme / way? Any comments?

Cheers again.


--
—A watched bread-crumb never boils.
—My hover-craft is full of eels.
—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Alvin Oga

hi ya david

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David R. Litwin wrote:

> It seems to me, still, that though XFS is faster

ext2 is the fastest fs out of ext2, ext3, reiserfs, xfs, jfs
        - read, write speed
        - xfs, jfs, reiserfs is faster for formatting

> (en general! Don't lop off my head for making a blanket statement!)

always fun

> and may become the standard at some point,

xfs lifespan is limited unless sgi does some major technology upgrades
that people will buy sgi instead of its competitor ...
        ( pixar, ilm, etc )

> ext3 is currently the most stable and reliable

and fixable

> I'm still not clear over the controvesy of having an ext2 /boot
partition

/boot is needed because soem old bios cannot read past 512MB disk boundry

/boot is NOT needed in general ...

/boot is neeeded if you are doing crypto-fs or lvm
        or more like /anything/vmlinuz and /anything/initrd is needed
        and it doesn't matter what its named ( /boot or /anything )

> and an XFS / partition: Why shouldn't I do this (if I choose to use XFS)
given that I do use GrUB?

grub is dumb, or smart, a point ov view, in that grub needs to know
the filesystem of /something/vmlinuz in order to read the kernel
and boot ( it needs its stage-1.5 info ) that is on a filesystem

lilo doesn't need the stage-1.5 info, which makes lilo "dumb" compared
to some nice grub features ... or lilo is smart cause it doesn;t need
stage-1.5 info

--- if it boots .. you don't care whether it is xfs, jfs, reiserfs,
    crypto-fs or even ext3, ext2

> I love the Bleeding edge)

than use lvm .... and cryptofs :-)  ...

> Since I've heard good things about crash
restoration (this laptop does crash) for ext3 and... not so good for XFS, I
think the former is safer.

that'd be a safe bet... if you do NOT save your data elsewhere

if the laptop is properly backed up.. it wont matter if it crashes or is
stolen
        - if its stolen, cryptofs will cover your butt ...
        and all your silly passwd you saved on the laptop

> The swap business. To partition or to have... files? What are the pros
and
cons (feel free to link to a howto or tell me to do so)? Indeed, should I
even _bother_ with a swap?

you will NOT need swap .. as long as your application does not run
out of virtual memory

> Will it make that much of a difference?

yeah... if you run out of virtual memory, your system will crash

if you have swap, it'd keep chugging away, a little slower or way slower
depending on your app and how much swap is used

> Finally, I know that there can be no absolutely correct choice.

for a specific condition, there is usually 2 or 3 best choices
and the reset of the normal i do it this because "that's what the
installer did" which is usually wrong for certain requirements
        - ease to recoverablity
        - faster performance
        - ease for admin and backups and restore
        - easy for 3:00am fire fighting when you rather not be there

for easy to install ... that's what the installer does/did ...

> I do _listen_ to a lot of music (an
increasing amount in flac).

xfs is good for lots of small files ( thousands of 2KB sized files )

xfs is NOT good ( better than any other ) for a few large files

> P. S.: Partitioner-wise: My friend reccomended I stick GParted on to a
> CD and use that. Is this the best programme / way? Any comments?

fdisk is the best ... but if one doesn't know fdisk and need gui...
than use what you can point and click with

c ya
alvin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Ron Johnson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya david
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David R. Litwin wrote:
>
[snip]
>> I do _listen_ to a lot of music (an
> increasing amount in flac).
>
> xfs is good for lots of small files ( thousands of 2KB sized files )
>
> xfs is NOT good ( better than any other ) for a few large files

I think you've confused xfs with ReiserFS.  Because of tail
compression, ReiserFS is *great* for situations where you've got
thousands of 2KB files (a Maildir IMAP server, for example).

OTOH, SGI's primary business was video, which means huge files,
which is what they tuned (Irix) xfs for.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEiSylS9HxQb37XmcRAgifAKDmyu1fJZUCxYcnaWQ9cfw2fJzoDACgnXFu
6opj3V9/8Z1pVxRsyDIYrwM=
=fpMW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

michf
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:51:53 -0500
Ron Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David R. Litwin wrote:
> > Hallo friendly list:
> >
> > I've decided that windows has to go and a swap has to come. So, I'm a gonna
> > clear the hard drive of my Toshiba satellite A70 laptop and give myself a
> > new start on life. Now, I've been looking about some. It seems that ext3 or
> > xfs are the best filesystems, with /boot being on a seperate ext2 partition
> > using xfs (do I need to do this?). Is this true? Is it true of a laptop
> > which I use for every day desktop purposes? I hear also that xfs is a pain
> > to deal with if the system crashes. Is this true?
>
> For simplicity, IMHO, stick with ext3, since it's the most widely
> used fs and therefore (a) the most debugged, and (b) has good
> maintenance tools.
>
> reiserfs is great if you are going to have lots of small files.  On
> a mail server, for example.
>
> xfs is great for *huge* files.  Video/audio editing, running a PVR, etc.
>
> I set up the partitions in this order:
> /boot  50MB
> /      12*GB*  (this strongly depends on how big your drive is)
> /home  the balance of the space on the drive.
>
> Note that there are no swap partitions.  This is because I use swap
> *files*, which give you much more flexibility.  (In case you add
> more RAM later, you just add another swapfile, whereas with
> partitions, you're stuck with your initial partition map.)
>

But IIRC swap files are slower then swap partitions. Probably a better solution
is to have a basic swap partition and then add swap files as needed (it I
recall there is also a utility for automatically adding swap files but I don't
remember more).

> >                                                  How so? Finally, I've
> > heard of zfs. Is this worth looking in to more?
>
> zfs, I'm 99.9% sure, is only implemented on Solaris.
>
> - --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA  USA
>
> Is "common sense" really valid?
> For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
> whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
> are mud people.
> However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFEh9cZS9HxQb37XmcRAl7VAJ93UFTpHfzxcbUIsjDfd7Yw9Bbe1QCfWroF
> UYIJw4e2uIwByCPcRJfNdl8=
> =A0+U
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ext3 or xfs for desktop laptop

Ron Johnson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:51:53 -0500 Ron Johnson
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> David R. Litwin wrote:
[snip]

>
> Note that there are no swap partitions.  This is because I use
> swap *files*, which give you much more flexibility.  (In case you
> add more RAM later, you just add another swapfile, whereas with
> partitions, you're stuck with your initial partition map.)
>
>
>> But IIRC swap files are slower then swap partitions. Probably a
>> better solution is to have a basic swap partition and then add
>> swap files as needed (it I recall there is also a utility for
>> automatically adding swap files but I don't remember more).

That's how they were back before 2.6.  Allegedly swapfiles are now
just as "fast" as partitions.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEiiK0S9HxQb37XmcRAthjAKDc0TcEuWwcY65/R5Fi91ZGp516GQCfTEwE
nlbI7mH6Y6/h68HiBniyGbw=
=7vA0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

12