Request comparison of relative strenths of the various journaling file systems

[Collins Richey]

On 06 Apr 2003 22:40:32 -0400
Mel Roman <melroman at canada.com> wrote:

> Hi:
> 
> I've been using linux for a couple of years now, although 
> I still consider myself a newbie.  I had always used ext2 
> up until now, but I've heard a lot in this newsgroup (and
>  others) about ReiserFS, ext3, and XFS.   I've done  a 
> little reading on the web re: journaling filesystems.  I'm 
> sold on the concept and have decided to go with a 
> journaling filesystem when I upgrade my Mandrake system.
> 
> I understand that ReiserFS, ext3, and XFS all have their
> pros and cons, but I haven't seen anythings that lists what
> those pros and cons are.  What are the advantages of one 
> over the others?  Which would you recommmend?  Why?  Which
> would you stay away from?  Why?
> 

To summarize what most people on this list have posted over the last few
months:

1. Most people prefer XFS.  XFS has the one drawback that it is not part
of the 2.4.x kernel distribution; it will be packaged with the kernal in
2.6.x.  This means you have to get the XFS patches, or find a distro
that has applied the patches.  The patches are not available for
pre-patch releases of the kernel.

2. Some like myself prefer EXT3 because it is "simpler" and a part of
the standard kernel 2.4.x (and later) distribution.  I've used EXT3 for
a couple of years, and it has always recovered successfully from
emergency shutdowns.

3. Fewer people seem to be using reiserfs, although it is alwo a part of
the 2.4.x (and later) kernel distribution.

For a desktop system, any of these choices will do.  Most server users
seem to prefer XFS.

--- 
Collins - Slack 9.0 EXT3