On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM, <meino.cra...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I googled down some - often fairly outdated - texts about "the
> best filesystem" fpr a Linux box. Other texts focussed on
> uses, which do not aplly to me: Fileservers, webservers, database
> machines etc.
>
> Wnat I want is a fast and stable (!) filesystem for a desktop PC
> with one 1TByte harddisk. Since using Gentoo and a lot of sources
> I do compile very often "bigger things" (blender-2.50 for example).
> Another thing: Due to my experimenting it is possible that I have to
> reboot "hard", which means, the filesystem will be unmounted not
> cleanly ("dirty" do to say...;) The choosen filesystem should be
> good in recovering such thing.
>
> I am currently using a vanilla 2.6.32.10 kernel.
>
> The question, what remains is: What choose should I make?
I have been following this thread. I decided to research to do my own
comparisons of ext3, ext4, JFS and XFS.
ext3 has 3 journaling levels:
Journal (lowest risk)
Ordered (medium risk) most Linux distributions are using this one
Writeback (highest risk)
XFS uses Ordered (medium risk)
JFS uses Writeback (highest risk)
It appears from the documentation that ext4 takes the best of ext3, XFS and JFS.
My research also showed that ext2/3 is the most widely used on Linux
and has the greatest community support coverage.
ext4 falls into the same category as XFS and JFS in this respect.
It appears that ext4, XFS or JFS or some combination of them would be
the best choice.
If you want to know where I got my information use Google like I did.
--
If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the
people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become
happy. - Thomas Jefferson
