| 1 |
Am 21.03.2011 20:32, schrieb Jarry: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm looking for "the best" filesystem for a small multi-purpose |
| 5 |
> server with a couple of services running (ftp, web, mail, mysql). |
| 6 |
> For me very important features are: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> snapshot (will be used for backup, must be native without lvm) |
| 9 |
> journaling |
| 10 |
> resizeable (if possible online) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> After a little research I have found two candidates: |
| 13 |
> JFS (created by IBM) |
| 14 |
> XFS (created by SGI) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Now without trying to start flame-war, my question is: |
| 17 |
> which of them could be better for my need? |
| 18 |
> More stable, more reliable, more efficient, etc. |
| 19 |
> Or should I consider some different filesystem? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Jarry |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In the past, I used many different file systems including JFS, |
| 25 |
ReiserFS-3, Ext2 and Ext3 but excluding XFS (so I won't say anything on |
| 26 |
that). Now I only ever use Ext4 except for floppies and USB sticks. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
JFS is a nice system, especially for larger files and resource |
| 29 |
constrained servers. However, Ext4 has become so much better than Ext3 |
| 30 |
in perceived performance (especially when handling large files) that I |
| 31 |
see no reason to use anything but that. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
While it is still quiet young, it receives the most testing because it |
| 34 |
is the de-facto standard on most distributions. I personally never had |
| 35 |
data loss on Ext*, even when handling with unreliable laptops that kept |
| 36 |
freezing or producing kernel oops. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Hope this helps, |
| 39 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives