Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #177216 > unrolled thread

What file system to use?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  What file system to use? Dennis Wicks <wix@mgssub.com> - 2017-02-01 09:30 +0100
    Re: What file system to use? "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2017-02-01 09:40 +0100
      Re: What file system to use? solitone <solitone@mail.com> - 2017-02-01 09:50 +0100
    Re: What file system to use? Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> - 2017-02-01 11:20 +0100
    Re: What file system to use? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-02-01 13:30 +0100
      Re: What file system to use? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-02-01 14:40 +0100
    Re: What file system to use? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2017-02-01 23:40 +0100
      Re: What file system to use? Roba <roba@openmailbox.org> - 2017-02-02 01:20 +0100
        Re: What file system to use? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2017-02-02 03:10 +0100
          Re: What file system to use? Ken Heard <kenslists@teksavvy.com> - 2017-02-02 09:20 +0100
            Re: What file system to use? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-02-02 21:10 +0100
              Re: What file system to use? Ken Heard <kenslists@teksavvy.com> - 2017-02-03 05:30 +0100
            Re: What file system to use? Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2017-02-03 15:20 +0100
        Re: What file system to use? Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2017-02-02 11:10 +0100

#177216 — What file system to use?

I am going to install some more disks and I was wondering 
which file system to use.

I have several ext? and a few with Reiserfs. Is there a 
better choice than Reiser now? Also, is there any way to 
convert from my existing fs to the recommended one?

BTW, I am running "Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)" on 686-pae.

Many TIA!
Dennis

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#177217

I used to use ReiserFS and liked it, but I don't think much work has been
done on it since Hans Reiser went to jail.  Lately, I've been using ext4,
which seems to work quite nicely.

--------------------------|
John L. Ries              |
Salford Systems           |
Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 |
or     (435)867-8885      |
--------------------------|


On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Dennis Wicks wrote:

> I am going to install some more disks and I was wondering which file system to
> use.
>
> I have several ext? and a few with Reiserfs. Is there a better choice than
> Reiser now? Also, is there any way to convert from my existing fs to the
> recommended one?
>
> BTW, I am running "Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)" on 686-pae.
>
> Many TIA!
> Dennis
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177219

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 1:36:19 AM CET John L. Ries wrote:
> Lately, I've been using ext4, which seems to work quite nicely.

I also stick with ext4, which BTW I think is the default option.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177225

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Dennis Wicks:
>
> I am going to install some more disks and I was wondering which file system
> to use.

Use ext4 unless you have special requirements. I would always use LVM as
well because it makes partitioning a lot easier.

> I have several ext? and a few with Reiserfs. Is there a better choice than
> Reiser now?

Probably every filesystem which is merged into the mainline kernel. I
would (still) stay away from BTRFS with jessie.

> Also, is there any way to convert from my existing fs to the
> recommended one?

Sorry, don't know that. You can always copy/rsync, of course.

J.
-- 
I hate myself but have no clear idea why.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
                 <http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177228

Hi Dennis,

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:23:13AM -0600, Dennis Wicks wrote:
> I have several ext? and a few with Reiserfs. Is there a better choice
> than Reiser now?

What are your requirements or typical usage?

> Also, is there any way to convert from my existing
> fs to the recommended one?

I do not think there are any reiserfs conversion programs to anything
else, but the different versions of ext can all be converted to
ext4.

Other than that you're probably going to have to copy it across.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177229

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

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 12:29:03PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:23:13AM -0600, Dennis Wicks wrote:
> > I have several ext? and a few with Reiserfs. Is there a better choice
> > than Reiser now?

Seconded the general sentiment around here. *If* you're posing that
question in such general terms, then the answer is almost certainly
ext4. It is a very good performer beyond the multi-TB range, thoroughly
tested, rock solid.

If you have needs so special you'd notice any difference towards
ext4, you'd know :-)

I slightly disagree on LVM: use it if you know you need it (I *do*
use it, but I know I need it :) -- just ask here.

> Other than that you're probably going to have to copy it across.

That sounds like a terrible thing, but actually isn't, because you
will have a backup before doing something so dangerous, won't you?

Unless we are talking about that huge 400TB disk array which is
so big you can't afford making a backup. But then, perhaps, putting
*one* file system on that might be the wrong approach :)

I'd say ext4. Whether on top of LVM or not -- just pick the more
convincing arguments or try to poke some discussion around here :)

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAliR5BMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbLCQCdFJ4HZxiyReTgpqbhfBcWWZ8j
FowAn17W6ZLzJ2y3dPfhG2zDWVGa4D4O
=f0ER
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177264

On 01/02/17 03:23 AM, Dennis Wicks wrote:
> I am going to install some more disks and I was wondering which file 
> system to use.
>
> I have several ext? and a few with Reiserfs. Is there a better choice 
> than Reiser now? Also, is there any way to convert from my existing fs 
> to the recommended one?
>
> BTW, I am running "Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)" on 686-pae.
>
> Many TIA!
> Dennis
>
Haven't used Reiser since he was charged with murder. It used to have 
some advantages but they have long since been obviated.

BTRFS will become the default choice at some point but the last time I 
checked, it was still a lot slower than ext4.

I avoid LVM because I don't see any point in adding complexity to a 
system when you don't need to. Unless you are constantly fiddling with 
partitions, you don't need it.

However if you have a multi-disk system, I suggest using software RAID 
(mdadm) to provide some safety against disk failure. I use RAID6 on 
servers and either RAID1 or RAID5 on workstations. Disks are cheap 
enough these days that I don't see any need to worry about disk failures.

Finally, I recommend using an SSD for your system drive. The extra speed 
is worth it on workstations. However I always use RAID for /home and 
network shares.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177267

Is there any difference between ext3 and ext4 in terms of backing up a
system?  I can't recall the details but I run into a backup problem once
and remember reading that ext4 was under experimentation by the backup
developers and ext3 was supported fully but not ext4.
I am not sure if it was clonezilla or not.

Gary Dale:
> On 01/02/17 03:23 AM, Dennis Wicks wrote:
>> I am going to install some more disks and I was wondering which file
>> system to use.
>>
>> I have several ext? and a few with Reiserfs. Is there a better choice
>> than Reiser now? Also, is there any way to convert from my existing fs
>> to the recommended one?
>>
>> BTW, I am running "Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)" on 686-pae.
>>
>> Many TIA!
>> Dennis
>>
> Haven't used Reiser since he was charged with murder. It used to have
> some advantages but they have long since been obviated.
> 
> BTRFS will become the default choice at some point but the last time I
> checked, it was still a lot slower than ext4.
> 
> I avoid LVM because I don't see any point in adding complexity to a
> system when you don't need to. Unless you are constantly fiddling with
> partitions, you don't need it.
> 
> However if you have a multi-disk system, I suggest using software RAID
> (mdadm) to provide some safety against disk failure. I use RAID6 on
> servers and either RAID1 or RAID5 on workstations. Disks are cheap
> enough these days that I don't see any need to worry about disk failures.
> 
> Finally, I recommend using an SSD for your system drive. The extra speed
> is worth it on workstations. However I always use RAID for /home and
> network shares.
> 
> 

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177272

On 01/02/17 07:11 PM, Roba wrote:
> Is there any difference between ext3 and ext4 in terms of backing up a
> system?  I can't recall the details but I run into a backup problem once
> and remember reading that ext4 was under experimentation by the backup
> developers and ext3 was supported fully but not ext4.
> I am not sure if it was clonezilla or not.
>
There shouldn't be any problem with ext4. It's been the Linux standard 
for years now. I can't even imagine what the backup issue would be 
unless they were trying to make some kind of sparse backup using FS 
internals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177276

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

On 2017-02-02 08:47, Gary Dale wrote:

> There shouldn't be any problem with ext4. It's been the Linux
> standard for years now. I can't even imagine what the backup issue
> would be unless they were trying to make some kind of sparse backup
> using FS internals.

I use USB flash drives and 480 GB SanDisk portable drives for some
backups. I started by using ext4 on one of the flash drives. The next
day I tried to boot the computer, but found that the computer hung.
Only at this point did I find out that those drives are not capable of
journalling.

So I either had to use ext4 with the journalling feature disabled or
revert to ext2 for these drives.  I chose the latter, as simpler and
less susceptible to errors.  I have had no trouble with them since.

Regards, Ken Heard





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAliS5pkACgkQlNlJzOkJmTcGcgCfXV7MzOXuKKGfjPYeiGlyqzTl
HOkAnjRazo1ab744SF3PPNdLO1V8sJKm
=Dyv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177307

On 02/02/17 20:58, Ken Heard wrote:
> I use USB flash drives and 480 GB SanDisk portable drives for some
> backups. I started by using ext4 on one of the flash drives. The next
> day I tried to boot the computer, but found that the computer hung.
> Only at this point did I find out that those drives are not capable of
> journalling.

I use USB flash drives with ext4 for backups and have not had any 
problems with journalling. I have had at least one successful journal 
recovery, after an inadvertent disconnection before unmount. What 
problems did you encounter?

I optimised my ext4 backup filesystems for a small number of large files 
(compressed archives) with:

mkfs.ext4 -J size=4 -m 0 -T largefile4 -O "^resize_inode" /dev/sdb1
tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 -L Backup /dev/sdb1

My /etc/fstab contains:

LABEL=Backup /media/backup ext4 noatime,noauto,user,errors=remount-ro 0 0

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177326

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

On 2017-02-03 03:03, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> On 02/02/17 20:58, Ken Heard wrote:
>> I use USB flash drives and 480 GB SanDisk portable drives for
>> some backups. I started by using ext4 on one of the flash drives.
>> The next day I tried to boot the computer, but found that the
>> computer hung. Only at this point did I find out that those
>> drives are not capable of journalling.
> 
> I use USB flash drives with ext4 for backups and have not had any 
> problems with journalling. I have had at least one successful
> journal recovery, after an inadvertent disconnection before
> unmount. What problems did you encounter?
> 
> I optimised my ext4 backup filesystems for a small number of large
> files (compressed archives) with:
> 
> mkfs.ext4 -J size=4 -m 0 -T largefile4 -O "^resize_inode"
> /dev/sdb1 tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 -L Backup /dev/sdb1
> 
> My /etc/fstab contains:
> 
> LABEL=Backup /media/backup ext4
> noatime,noauto,user,errors=remount-ro 0 0
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
First I should say that the result I described in my original post
occurred in a computer with Debian Wheezy as the OS.  I do not know
whether the result would be the same with Jessie, and frankly I am not
really anxious to find out.

Second, all these drives were encrypted with cryptsetup.  Encryption
plus ext4 with journalling may have been too much to ask of the
operating system.

Third, the last thing I did the evening before the morning when the
computer crashed was to transfer a series of uncompressed jpg files to
a USB flash drive.  I assumed that the transfer was finished when the
bang reappeared on the command line; so I shut down the computer. I
did not unmount the drive before shutdown.  It may be that the
journalling requirements for the transfer were never finished when the
bang appeared, and were still unfinished at shutdown, thereby causing
the computer not to boot the next morning. I will never know now.  I
did of course have to reinstall the OS starting on that day.

Finally, I discovered that trying to open an encrypted USB flash drive
in Dolphin caused Dolphin to crash.  I had to use Konqueror instead.
I filed a bug report for the crash. I have never checked to see
whether the bug was fixed.

All the events described in my original post and in this one took
place in December 2014.  I continue since then to use Konqueror for
such encrypted drives with ext2.  This arrangement works for me, and
my curiosity does not extend so far as to find out whether I still
need to use it three years later.

Regards, Ken Heard



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAliUBsUACgkQlNlJzOkJmTdZegCePvnEqZGsP+old2vKryH+Z60C
UzEAmwfpk6kBwCj7upU/uEfV4KF9GxjC
=K72B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177339

On 02/02/17 02:58 AM, Ken Heard wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2017-02-02 08:47, Gary Dale wrote:
>
>> There shouldn't be any problem with ext4. It's been the Linux
>> standard for years now. I can't even imagine what the backup issue
>> would be unless they were trying to make some kind of sparse backup
>> using FS internals.
> I use USB flash drives and 480 GB SanDisk portable drives for some
> backups. I started by using ext4 on one of the flash drives. The next
> day I tried to boot the computer, but found that the computer hung.
> Only at this point did I find out that those drives are not capable of
> journalling.
>
> So I either had to use ext4 with the journalling feature disabled or
> revert to ext2 for these drives.  I chose the latter, as simpler and
> less susceptible to errors.  I have had no trouble with them since.
>
> Regards, Ken Heard
>
>
That's a separate issue from what the OP asked. USB sticks aren't great 
for use with a journaling file system, which would include ext3 (but not 
ext2), because you can only write to them a limited number of times. 
However that doesn't preclude their use as a backup device even with 
journaling enabled.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#177282

Roba <roba@openmailbox.org> wrote:

> Is there any difference between ext3 and ext4 in terms of backing up a
> system?  I can't recall the details but I run into a backup problem
> once and remember reading that ext4 was under experimentation by the
> backup developers and ext3 was supported fully but not ext4.  I am not
> sure if it was clonezilla or not.

I'd consider *any* software not beeing compatible with ext4 in this day
and age to be horribly broken. Even worse if the software in question labels
itself as "backup software".

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web