×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fedora 11 To Default To the Ext4 File System

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the better-in-many-dimensions dept.

Data Storage 161

ffs writes "The next release of Fedora, 11, will default to the ext4 file system unless serious regressions are seen, as reported by heise online. The LWN story has a few comments extolling the virtues of the file system. Some benchmarks have shown ext4 to be much faster than the current default ext3. Some of the new features that matter for desktop users are a faster file system check, extents support (for efficiently storing large files and reducing fragmentation), multiblock allocation (faster writes), delayed block allocation, journal checksumming (saving against power / hardware failures), and others. The KernelNewbies page has more information on each feature. As is the extfs tradition, mounting a current ext3 filesystem as ext4 will work seamlessly; however, most new features will not be available with the same on-disk format, meaning a fresh format with ext4 or converting the disk layout to ext4 will offer the best experience."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

161 comments

Linus Torvalds has a huge penis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574181)

Ninnle Linux

1st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574217)

1st

EXT4 in Clusters? (1, Informative)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574253)

After doing research on various cluster filesystems I eventually decided on GFS (as opposed to luyster, which seemed a bit overkill). How does EXT4 compare to GFS? Can EXT4 even be used in a clustered environment?

No (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574295)

Ext4 is not a SAN or distributed filesystem. GPFS/lustre/GFS remain a good choice for that.

Re:No (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574415)

Ext4 was designed by the open-source communists who are responsible for Ubuntu [tripod.com] , Linux for Subhumans. Of course it's inferior, much like the niggers who work on and use the leading FOSS home operating system it is associated with.

Re:No (2, Interesting)

Ivlis (1234144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579003)

Linux is not communism. Part of the appeal of Linux is that Microsoft abuses its monopoly to eliminate competition (OS/2, BeOS, Wordperfect, QuickTime, etc...). By defending competition, freedom of choice and a free market, Linux defends capitalistic ideals. And people are allowed to sell Linux: SuSE does just that.

Re:EXT4 in Clusters? (4, Insightful)

Forge (2456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574765)

Clustered file systems and local file systems are of necessity different. Most of what makes a clustered FS useful would be pure dead weight on a local FS.

What I would like to see are clustered FSs which are easier to set up. I.e. You go to the 1st machine and start up the cluster config program and it asks: "Is this the 1st machine in your cluster?" Once you say yes there, you go to the other machines in turn, fire up the same program and say no to that question and enter the IP of the 1st machine.

Once all those machines are added, the next step is to select. "Add Local disk to cluster pool" and then you select partitions on your local hard drive that should be in the pool. They don't have to all be the same size either.

Once you have done that for each machine (either by going from one to the next or using the the tool on the primary node to add disks from each one (or a whole group of them if they are already partitioned in the same way).

Then you just start mounting this virtual disk and dumping files to it.

The technology exists to do this. The problem is that each time it's done' its a manual process tantamount to a programing job. Who want's to take up the task of tying all the pieces together to make the setup feel this simple for the user.

Additional functionality (like tuning the FS for Database or Email usage and failover hierarchy) would be added over time and in a way that dose not detract from the simplicity of that basic setup.

Re:EXT4 in Clusters? (2, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575289)

Sounds like someone should learn perl or python and get to it!

Re:EXT4 in Clusters? (4, Insightful)

Forge (2456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575795)

We all have our talents.

I have bartered PC repair and System admin services for competent legal advise, accounting service and even medical care on one occasion (Every desktop in my dentist's office had the "worm of the month").

Sensible people do what they are good at and wherever possible get others to do the other things.

This little project may take a day or a few months for a pearl wizard. I'm not sure. I do know it would take me years, if it got done at all.

Re:EXT4 in Clusters? (2, Informative)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575965)

Red Hat ship some web based tools called Luci and Ricci which basically do all of this, with a pointy-clicky interface.

Rich.

Re:EXT4 in Clusters? (3, Informative)

Forge (2456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576229)

I have used them.

1. The work for sharing a SAN but are not so useful for clustering local disks.

2. Even doing what they are good at, setup is a bit more tedious than I would like.

BTW: A nice setup menu dose not need to be GUI. Many of the console tools in the system-config-whatever series are nice.

Re:EXT4 in Clusters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26576731)

Just pointing out that XFS is both a local and clustered file system (okay, technically it's called CXFS when it's in clustered mode). Either way it has the same on-disk layout, just that in clustered mode all the metadata operations are arbitrated by a dedicated server.

My point is that a clustered filesystem is less about the what's on the disk, and more about being able to coordinate metadata operations.

Re:EXT4 in Clusters? (1)

BBandCMKRNL (1061768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578171)

...just that in clustered mode all the metadata operations are arbitrated by a dedicated server.

A single server? Haven't you just given yourself a really nasty single point of failure? What happens if that server crashes or loses communication with the other servers in some manner? Does it recover like a VMS Cluster such that if communication with the Distributed Lock Manager Master Node is lost for too long, everything stops while the remaining nodes decide on a new Master Node and all the nodes re-sync their view of the world? Of course, the VMS DLM manages more than just access to shared disks. It's capable of managing access to any shared entity that is DLM aware.

Why not ReiserFS? (-1, Troll)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574255)

I'm too lazy to read up on ext4, so:

Why not just use ReiserFS? It's definitely faster than ext3.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574281)

I'm too lazy to read up on ext4, so:

Why not just use ReiserFS? It's definitely faster than ext3.

Because it was convicted of murder, that's why.

ReiserFS is good... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574391)

for when you need to partition your wife.

Re:ReiserFS is good... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26577995)

...or when you need to resize her...

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (0, Offtopic)

Jor-Al (1298017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574293)

Because he killed his wife. Don't you read the news?

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574409)

You are an idiot.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574381)

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (5, Informative)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574501)

ReiserFS isn't actively maintained. In addition to that ext3 and now ext4 have learned quite a few new tricks since ReiserFS first appeared, you can now online resize an ext3 filesystem, it supports hashed b-trees, which should speed up directory handling, it is getting an online defrag tool and a bunch of other goodies. So many of the benefits that ReiserFS originally brought to the table can now be have with ext3 or ext4.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26575423)

In fact suse changed their defaults from reiser to ext3 long time ago [opensuse.org] . The main reasons were: scalability on SMP, xattrs performance, lack of mainteinance, lack of a upgrade path...

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (4, Insightful)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575651)

Not to mention ext3 doesn't lose random OS files in the wake of a sudden power failure like reiserfs does. I might be alone on this event but after it happening on 3 different systems at 3 different times I'd think it would be documented more. I've always thought reiserfs was overrated and even if there is a speed increase data integrity is a lot more important to me.

It doesn't bother me that the creator is a convicted murderer, it does bother me that the file system gets away with murder all the time.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (1)

adamgundy (836997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575867)

me too.. power outage = partially broken filesystem. reiserfsck = completely broken filesystem. and a day long session of trying to fix things on a critical machine. end result: we now use ext3 everywhere...

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (1)

mortonda (5175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576245)

Critical systems should be on a UPS and have frequent backups... it makes those session much less drastic. That said, ext3 has always been an easier repair.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (1)

adamgundy (836997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576455)

there was a UPS.. it didn't last long enough to cover the entire outage. why didn't it shut down a few minutes before the power ran out? because we were using a logging filesystem, and we needed the machine to run as long as possible.. the backup was not as useful as it should have been (incomplete, sigh). I can't remember a time when ext3 failed to be repaired (sometimes with a little manual help recovering files from lost+found). I have a *very* clear recollection of reiserfs eating huge chunks of the filesystem as it 'repaired'.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (1)

phantomlord (38815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576705)

I have my home server on an UPS, but it didn't stop the power supply connector on my motherboard (Tyan S2460, it happened to other people on slashdot too) from shorting out, bringing down my system. A UPS is a tool to help prevent catastrophic failure, but it isn't guarantee.

a filesystem should help insulate the data during sudden power loss, not pretty much guarantee that it will thrash all of your data. Sometimes, shit just happens despite the best planning.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576071)

In the very very early days of ReiserFS, it had the tendency to trash files and it happened to me a couple of times, but it got fixed at some point and I didn't had any problem with that after that and have used ReiserFS3 happily for years.

Then on a new system (Ubuntu8.10) I tried XFS just for a change and I had file loss on day one, followed by continual file loss after each and every crash of the system (buggy Nvidia driver). The recommend solution to this was switching of hard drive cache, which however didn't change anything at all for me. I have replaced XFS with ext3 after that, since XFS seems to be completly unable to not lose files on crashes, and so far with ext3 I haven't lost a single file.

With all that talk about file system performance and stuff, it would be really nice to get a bit more information on what really matters: How good is a filesystem at keeping your files safe. All information on that seems anecdotal at best.

Re:Why not ReiserFS? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579057)

ext3 fscks were just too slow for me, reiser is may be a bit unstable (my laptop's hardware is screwed the HDD bales out and the pci-bus lock up randomly but ive only needed to do a whole disk fsck once (200G in 20min wasnt too bad), so im yet to see it)

Because anything valuable is backed up and given how slow ext has generally been i have no intention of using ext for anything that doesn't contain critical data, and ill stick with reiserfs/jfs until a better alternative btfs, et al, comes out.

How does it compare to ext2? (3, Interesting)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574309)

So where can I see some benchmarks showing just how much of a slowdown I can expect after switching from ext2 to ext4? All the benchmarks I see around here compare it to ext3 and to ReiserFS only. Also, is it possible to run ext4 without the journal? Any benchmarks on that? (Oh, and please, don't bother with the reliability lectures. I couldn't care less.)

Re:How does it compare to ext2? (5, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575445)

is it possible to run ext4 without the journal?

Yes, it is [kernel.org] . And, as you can see in the link, ext4 is faster than ext2. Even with journaling.

Re:How does it compare to ext2? (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578273)

You may be able to make one:

ext4_noj = {
    features = extents,huge_file,flex_bg,uninit_bg,dir_nlink,extra_isize
    inode_size = 256
}
# mke2fs -T ext4_noj ext4image.iso
mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
ext4image.iso is not a block special device.
Proceed anyway? (y,n) y
Filesystem label=
OS type: Linux
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
31296 inodes, 125000 blocks
6250 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
Maximum filesystem blocks=130023424
4 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
7824 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
                32768, 98304

Writing inode tables: done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done

But you might not beable to actually use it:

# mount -t ext4 -o loop ext4image.iso /mnt/loop1/
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/loop/0,
              missing codepage or helper program, or other error
              In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
              dmesg | tail or so
# dmesg | tail
    ext4: No journal on filesystem on loop0

I use ext4 on my media partition with no problems.

Ext4 small files performance? (4, Interesting)

Dogun (7502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574333)

I still haven't seen sensible benchmarks for ext4 with respect to how large directories scale, interleaved small file read and create, and small-file write with one fsync() at the very end (the only real world case.)

At this point, I have to wonder if the emporer has no clothes, or if the people posting benchmarks are just idiots.

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574499)

For those who are not filesystem wizzes, could you expand or provide a link on why this is important? I'm wanting to improve the performance of my boxes like everyone else but understanding the ins and outs of the filesystems is a weak point of mine. Thanks.

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (4, Insightful)

Dogun (7502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574835)

Because disks are buffered, and fsyncing after every call (or forgetting to do so entirely) is silly.

I suppose somebody cares about how well they can expect their 124GB file to stream to disk, but for the rest of us mortals, we care about journalling support (check), a toolset (mostly check), and common-case performance, which in the *nix world involves a lot of reading and writing of small files.

I'd also like to see how these things perform under load, or when multiple benchmarks are running simultaneously.

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (1)

kae_verens (523642) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575079)

maybe a silly question, but wouldn't running multiple benchmarks simultaneously cause spurious results?

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (2, Interesting)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575677)

What he really means is having a new benchmark that has a combination of loads from other benchmarks -- this is closer to a real-world case than any one individual benchmark, which is some kind of extreme case.

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (4, Interesting)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575097)

I suppose somebody cares about how well they can expect their 124GB file to stream to disk

I know for certain that I care about big-file performance in almost only these ways:

Can I write the file faster than the network sends it to me?

Can I read the file faster than the application (typically mplayer) needs to consume it?

When I know I shouldn't sit and wait for a larger task to continue, I really don't care how long it takes as long as I can do interactive stuff with good performance and the disk won't still be rattling when I go to sleep. Five minutes? An hour?

I'd rather have effort put into usability of disk management tools: four-way on-line resizing (left/right end moving left/right), on-line repacking (defragmentation) and on-disk format conversion, on-line repartitioning [which goes beyond the scope of ext4, of course] and things like that. A versioning file system would be cool, and btrfs snapshots sound like they'd be nice as well .

But that's the desires for my usage pattern, and I acknowledge that there are others.

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26577767)

To expand on this, Reiser4 destroyed everything else in a lot of benchmarks. But then you use it in real life for a year and it starts locking up the filesystem for 15+ seconds at a time doing god knows what.

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (0, Offtopic)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574895)

I still haven't seen sensible benchmarks for [...] small file read and create

This is pretty hard to benchmark with ext4. You see, those small files are a real lively lot. Trying to get them in one line, then wait for the start signal and then start at the same time has been quite an ordeal.

They've succeeded once, but then the mothers noticed the hustle. You'll be glad you weren't anywhere near. You might not think a lot about a fat mother penguin, which just tells me you have never seen a angry penguin charging at you in excess of 100 mph.

Re:Ext4 small files performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26575729)

At this point, I have to wonder if the emporer has no clothes, or if the people posting benchmarks are just idiots.

Then do the goddamn benchmark yourself and post the results. If the validity of EXT4 is that important to you, lend a hand instead of sitting on your ass and complaining.

A few answers (1)

E. Edward Grey (815075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574341)

I'll save you the intense effort it must take to scroll up and read the summary. The answer is COMPATIBILITY.

"As is the extfs tradition, mounting a current ext3 filesystem as ext4 will work seamlessly; however, most new features will not be available with the same on-disk format, meaning a fresh format with ext4 or converting the disk layout to ext4 will offer the best experience."

For my own purposes, I can't use ReiserFS because I can't stop thinking about that guy when I install it. Just...ick.

Re:A few answers (2, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574847)

As is the extfs tradition, mounting a current ext3 filesystem as ext4 will work seamlessly;

Shouldn't that be the other way around? If you mount an ext4 filesystem as ext3 the system will work, using only the ext3 subset of ext4. However, if you mount an ext3 as ext4 the system will try to use ext4 data structures which are simply not on the disk.

... or am I missing something?

Re:A few answers (5, Informative)

eparis (1289526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574913)

Yes you are missing something. :) The superblock on all extX say what features they support. So when you mount ext3 as ext4 the mount code can look what features that FS supports and use what new features it has available that won't break it as ext3. If you mount and ext3 fs as ext4 you'll get all of the benefits of ext4 like the enhanced inode allocator and what not, but you won't get extents so your huge file support is limited just like ext3) An ext4 fs can NOT be mounted as ext3 as the files will be stored using new features (like extents) which ext3 doesn't understand. Make sense? There will be (or is?) a conversion tool which will be able to downgrade ext4, but you can't just mount backwards.

Re:A few answers (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575087)

As is the extfs tradition, mounting a current ext3 filesystem as ext4 will work seamlessly; Shouldn't that be the other way around? If you mount an ext4 filesystem as ext3 the system will work, using only the ext3 subset of ext4. However, if you mount an ext3 as ext4 the system will try to use ext4 data structures which are simply not on the disk. ... or am I missing something?

Your missing something. Geeks are only worried about upgrading to the latest, so mount an ext3 and it will create the extra data for you. The other way round might work, but testing fallback is so unexciting

Re:A few answers (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578801)

It's like using software on new versions of Windows: usually, software that works in Windows 95 will still work in Windows 98, but software written for Windows 98 probably won't work on Windows 95. The newer version can still work with partitions from the old version, but the old version can't understand partitions made with the new version.

Re:A few answers (2, Insightful)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575189)

^I'm less concerned about what the guy did who spearheaded its design, and more about it becoming abandonware.

Re:A few answers (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576099)

For my own purposes, I can't use ReiserFS because I can't stop thinking about that guy when I install it. Just...ick.

For me, I can't use ReiserFS because I prefer to keep my data. I've had ReiserFS screw me over twice now. Once where the data was completely lost, and once where the data was damn-near lost but luckily recoverable with only a few files getting corrupted.

Fresh format vs conversion (2, Informative)

MacColossus (932054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574401)

I read the article and it looks like converting from ext3 to ext4 may be problematic.

I do not propose offering migration from ext3 by default, at this point, due to bugs in that process, and extra risk involved. Perhaps an "ext4migrate" boot option could be used to expose it for further testing.

Re:Fresh format vs conversion (4, Interesting)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574593)

Good to know. Personally I'll be happy to use ext4 on new disks or when I'm really doing a complete re-install, but I'm in no hurry to "upgrade", seeing as my current ext3 disks are working just fine. I played with different filesystems once until I got some corruption and realized that one of the advantages of ext3 is that it's been around long enough that there are lots of tools to help with recovery and checking. So I'll probably stick with what I know until I have an opportunity to try out ext4, but I'm not going to go and reformat my disks right away.

Re:Fresh format vs conversion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574759)

Surely moving over wont be too difficult.

Create a new ext4 partition. Install and boot up. Mount you old /home/ ext3 partition (or whatever else you want to move over) and copy the files up. OK, it won't be a quick process and doesn't really work for those whose /home/ is 80% of the disk. But its an option.

Re:Fresh format vs conversion (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575431)

It's not even that.
ext4 functions as an enabled flag on ext3.
So you can transition without formatting, or anything.

Re:Fresh format vs conversion (3, Informative)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576555)

Not always. If your old ext3 filesystem uses 128-bit inodes, they'll have to be converted to 256-bit by tune2fs. However, this may not be guaranteed to be successful. Actually it failed miserably on my system (it was several months ago and I don't know whether the e2fsprogs has been improved on this by now). I made backup before carrying out the experiment so after the failure I just reformatted the partition as ext4, updated fstab and recovered from backup.

Re:Fresh format vs conversion (2, Insightful)

incripshin (580256) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576009)

I upgraded, and eventually it erased my root directory. I'm presently trying to figure ext4 out and writing a program that should recursively recover files from /etc and my home directory. I recommend nobody use ext4 for at least five years.

Re:Fresh format vs conversion (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578075)

So... you upgraded to a brand-new filesystem without first making a backup? Some glitches are to be expected at this point, just as when ext3 first came out. If everyone followed your advice and avoided ext4 "for at least five years," however, those glitches would never be found, much less fixed.

Thank you Red Hat (5, Interesting)

eparis (1289526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574803)

I'm glad to see Red Hat and Fedora taking the hard steps to push our technology forward. Precious few organizations employ people to work on things like this, instead expecting others to do the hard work to create and integrate disruptive core technologys. I know Red Hat employs people to work full time on ext4 and they have a person working full time on btrfs (which by all early accounts is supposed to be revolutionary and kick the crap out of everything else out there [even the fabled ZFS] (it pains me to say thanks to oracle for btrfs, but one of their employees is the primary driver) Someone has to do the hard work of being a leader, putting in engineering time, and fixing the bugs before the fanboys can consume (and all too often get credit for) new technology. Thank you Fedora for both the freedom and the constant drive to be on the leading edge of technology.

Re:Thank you Red Hat (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575293)

And thanks to the Fedora users, apparently the first large user base that will (hopefully in full knowledge) be testing this thing for the benefit of the rest of the community (nothing against RedHat, somebody have to do the first step.)

Re:Thank you Red Hat (4, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576345)

There is a saying in Spanish, which translated says:

"They are braver than the first men to try oysters!"

Re:Thank you Red Hat (3, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578035)

I wonder if many "edible discoveries" involved drunk young men daring each other to eat something.

Stuff like: century eggs, tofu, lutefisk, casu marzu (not sure if the last is really that edible ;) ).

Re:Thank you Red Hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579305)

... kebabs, in England these are only edible by drunken people. Ever tried to eat a kebab, from your local Turkish outlet, when you're sober? *shudder*

Re:Thank you Red Hat (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579491)

Or extreme starvation: "we dropped our fish in the fireplace, but we'll surely die if we don't eat it anyway!"

This is all very well, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574859)

ext3 has had years to establish itself as a reliable performer in heavy real-life situations. Why is everybody being so ambivalent towards ext4 when it's relatively new and not particularly trustworthy as of yet?

Re:This is all very well, but... (2, Insightful)

SaDan (81097) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575495)

People are looking forward to ext4 because ext3 has performed so poorly compared to ReiserFS. No one wants to touch ReiserFS, regardless of its performance advantages over anything out today, because Hans was a psycho.

In a previous job, we tried everything we could to use ext3 for one of our server-based products, but the performance was never good enough compared to ReiserFS v3.

Hopefully the ext4 folks have learned how to implement all the excellent ideas Hans Reiser came up with between ReiserFS v3 and ReiserFS v4.

The new Dundle Linux uses Ext4 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574869)

The most current and stable version of Dundle Linux also defaults to Ext4, with options for Ext3 and 2, ReiserFS and will read and write to NTFS. Plans for a 'native' open source filesystem are in the works, DundleFS.

(plus one 1nformative) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26574997)

as the prem1ere

Fedora 10 bugs (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575067)

Excellent. This will be a great feature for F11. Now, if they could just get Fedora 10 booting with an nvidia fakeraid [redhat.com] , I'd be happy. And, fix the performance issues with intel GMA graphics [redhat.com] , that'd be dandy too.

Fedora is my favorite distro, but this fakeraid bug is ridiculous -- keeping me from running F10 on my desktop. Sure runs nicely on my Samsung NC10, though.

Re:Fedora 10 bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26576283)

Both of the bugs you listed have been corrected for F10, according to the bugs reports you linked.

Re:Fedora 10 bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26576395)

And, the links are reversed. But, one is "assigned" and the other is a dupe of another bug that is fixed in the "next release". Neither are fixed for Fedora release 10.

You Can Always Tell The Pioneers ... (1)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575225)

... They're the ones with the arrows in their backs! It's changes like this that underscore treating new distro versions as a public beta. Chances are, this or some other new feature will cause someone real pain. It's always a good idea to make sure that that someone is *not* you. Whether it's Fedora or OpenSuse, or Ubuntu, oftentimes features are added that aren't really ready for prime time. Trust no one.

Re:You Can Always Tell The Pioneers ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26575875)

For fuck's sake, stop whining and run Debian stable. Everyone else is going to move on as better things are available and, for all practical purposes, quite stable.

Re:You Can Always Tell The Pioneers ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26575905)

... They're the ones with the arrows in their backs!

Um, if they're really Pioneers, shouldn't the arrows be sticking out of their chests?

Re:You Can Always Tell The Pioneers ... (3, Informative)

BTG9999 (847188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576817)

Do you not know what Fedora is? Fedora is a bleeding edge distro. One that is openly acknowledged by Red Hat as being their Beta testers for new technologies that might eventually make it into RHEL. So this is just a standard thing Fedora does.

Re:You Can Always Tell The Pioneers ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26577421)

I agree but Fedora 9 and 10 are so full of bugs that calling them beta releases is also an overstatement, especially half assed GDM in 9 and 10. What a joke.

Re:You Can Always Tell The Pioneers ... (1)

ems2004 (814056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26577493)

I fully agree with your opinion. Fedora quality is on a constant decline, but unfortunately, all the competition is also not that rosy (no matter what ubuntu fans might think).

Re:You Can Always Tell The Pioneers ... (1)

ems2004 (814056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26577631)

Yes, it is bleeding edge but I am stuck with Fedora 8 on my Acer aspire 3000 laptop because the bleeding edge 9 and 10 don't have X display working for it. I tried ubuntu 8.10 but that also has the same problem(i know i know .....do this ..do that). Even the install does not go thru because X display can not start properly. At least the bleeding edge should not start bleeding already working solutions.

fs-driver (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26576153)

ext3 seems to be the nicest at the moment for native linux support and painless Windows support for dual boot machines. Easier than using NTFS in Linux. Last I heard ext4 wouldn't work with Windows.

Re:fs-driver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26577905)

Indeed - not natively, but (free!) stuff exists to access ext2 & 3 partitions from Windows. Not ext4 yet...

FS choices in the Datacenter (4, Interesting)

unixluv (696623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26577633)

One of my biggest beefs with ext3 in the data center is the required fsck periodically. Redhat won't support jfs or xfs (which I can get from CentOs) but some vendors won't support anything that isn't on their supported platform list (IBM Clearcase for one).

So is ext4 going to force a fsck at boot, which takes 1/2 a day with ext3 on some of my multi-Tb systems? Will Redhat finally adopt a better server filesystem? These are the questions that some of us doing professional Redhat support are asking.

Re:FS choices in the Datacenter (2, Informative)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578313)

So turn it off the periodical fsck then:

tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/foo

It's perfectly safe as long as the underlying blockdevice is safe (RAID).

Re:FS choices in the Datacenter (1)

Gerald (9696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578597)

It's perfectly safe as long as the underlying blockdevice is safe (RAID).

I'd rather have a filesystem that's perfectly safe period, thankyouverymuch.

Lunatic Fringe (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#26579687)

This is good news. All those Fedora folks can be beta testers. In five years or so I'll consider going from ext3 to ext4. It's only about a year since I went to ext3. I figured it must be OK by now since there haven't been any scare stories. I used to use Reiser before ext3 was stable.

xfs is really over-rated. I used to work on an "Enterprise" storage appliance that used xfs. It was scary. Don't go there. Also, avoid anything from IBM.

chasing the version number game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26579901)

Fedora instead of trying to improve its engineering, quality of releases is running after cheap publicity and version number to match up to OpenSUSE and UBUNTU.

What's Best for SSDs? (1)

scruffy (29773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26580137)

Is ext2 a better choice because it limits the number of writes, or is that a silly worry?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...