Beta
×

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!

Linux Filesystems Benchmarked

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the some-my-fs-is-more-fast dept.

Data Storage 468

smatt-man writes "Over at Linux Gazette they ran some tests on popular Linux filesystems (ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs) and the results may surprise you."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ooh, a surprise? (-1, Troll)

Mr. Darl McBride (704524) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116139)

"...and the results may surprise you."

Why, did Lindows come out on top as the only user of FAT16 or something?

'Tis a dupe (5, Informative)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116141)

The original article [slashdot.org]

Re:'Tis a dupe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116163)

yes, a dupe.

Re:'Tis a dupe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116186)

A dupe indeed.

'Tis a dupe (0, Redundant)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116215)

The original article [slashdot.org]

Since article has been ./ed.... (5, Funny)

vwjeff (709903) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116262)

here is the winner. FAT 16

FAT is becoming very harmful (3, Funny)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116417)

on a global scale FAT [msn.com] is becoming the top health problem.

Re:'Tis a dupe (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116310)

"Over at Linux Gazette they ran some tests on popular Linux filesystems (ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs) and the results may surprise you."

I _was_ suprised... I didn't expect that it would be a dupe :)

Re:'Tis a dupe (1)

Anglos (755282) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116444)

Why is parent scored Redundant, 1 when a post a minute after this was Informative, 4?

It says the same thing

Dupe (0, Informative)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116144)

Dupe [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116360)

It's slashdot's mob tactics again. Now Taco will call their ISP and ask them "Are you SURE you don't want our protection? Certainly protecting the servers you love is worth some...compensation." If they say no, another posting of this story as soon as the admins "forget" this one.

jesus. (-1, Troll)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116146)

Come on. Hardly any comments and it's dead? Ed's fucking mirror that shit...jesus, it's not that much to ask.

Re:jesus. (0, Troll)

misterHY (776161) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116216)

Actually it is that much to ask. If you mirror anything without permission, you'll get some serious (deserved) copyright troubles. Let's hope CmdrTaco realy likes lawyers.

Re:jesus. (0, Flamebait)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116556)

"....mirror anything without permission..."

Who in their right mind would do that? Of course permission was implied, moron.

-1 Offtopic (4, Funny)

numbski (515011) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116147)

tests on popular Linux filesystes

So did the tests come back positive or negative? Systes are nasty things, and early detection is important to increase chances of survivability.

Remember kids. Test early, and test often. You files will thank you.

Re:-1 Offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116581)

anyone else noticing the humour nazis are out in force last few articles?

this may be offtopic, but it's hardly a troll.

in fact i believe it's what's called a "joke".

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116150)

woohoo! oh yeah!

This is a dupe. (-1, Redundant)

Anonytroll (751214) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116153)

Look here [slashdot.org] for the exact same story.

Not a clear winner (5, Interesting)

stecoop (759508) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116155)

These charts make the choice of which file system to use clear as mud. What is the charts really saying? From what I gather, it appears that:

EXT2 has better throughput

EXT3 has better file handling capablities

Reiser has better search ablity

XFS has better delete capablities

JFS may be a better choice in regards to file manipulation Subject to debate of course...

Re:Not a clear winner (5, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116223)

Not quite what I got from it. Ext2 was certainly faster for a lot of operations, but is, of course, not journalled. XFS and JFS were fast, but most importantly, when it came to large files, these two tended to really take the lead. XFS was particularly good at handling large files. Overall Ext3 was disappointingly slow surprisingly often.

Jedidiah.

Re:Not a clear winner (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116313)

Ext3 met Dr. Tweedie's engineering goals. The idea was to develop a journaling file system which was seamlessly compatible with Ext2. Ext3 is really an engineering marvel. You can instantly convert it back and forth between Ext2 an Ext3.

Ext3 provides a safe low-pain entry into the world of journaled file systems. No need to re-partition or reformat. It offers reasonably good performance plus the benefits of journalling.

Re:Not a clear winner (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116349)

I've been using ext4 for a few months now and it's a surprising improvment over ext3 in terms of performance. I was surprised to see that they didn't include it in their interview. Ext4 has this to say regarding the older file systems, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Surprisingly, ext4 is journalled, handles larger files quite readily, and can fit a cigar vaginally in all female users of Linux. I'd highly advise all Linux geeks to try out ext4. It's a big step beyond all the other filesystems.

Not wasting time... (-1, Troll)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116158)

Not wasting time with the dupes [slashdot.org] today I see. Why wait 12 hours before posting it again to the front page instead of section where it probably belonged?

Jedidiah.

Re:Not wasting time... (0, Offtopic)

samhalliday (653858) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116260)

aah, finally i track down the mystical Jedidiah whose stylesheets i "borrowed"! you left a note on my blog good sir, but never left an email and the one on your website does not work (even the one in the GPG key).

i meant to say, but never could, that you are free to "borrow" back the XHTML-1.1 compatible stylesheets i made from yours, and you are also welcome to my image page's PHP and my blog setup (which will encoroprate your style nicely!). i noticed you needed those things from the entries on your webpage.

FUCK IT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116162)

Thanks, Slashdot! (0, Flamebait)

Seth Finklestein (582901) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116164)

If there's one thing we need, it's more stories [slashdot.org] about file system benchmarks [slashdot.org] .

Come on, Michael. I bet someone stepped on your foot [slashdot.org] in the park. Give us something good to lambaste you about, you dirty thief.

Slightly OT (3, Interesting)

iReflect (215501) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116188)

This is good information to know, but for a project I'm working on I need to know which filesystem can take the most abuse. I'm talking about power-outages and hard-resets mostly. I know I should go journalled, but which one? What else should I keep in mind.

Re:Slightly OT (5, Informative)

Malc (1751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116315)

Obviously (as you point out) a journallying filesystem is what you need. I went for Ext3 on my Debian servers. I/O throughput wasn't so important. The good thing about Ext3 is its backwards-compatibility with Ext2. If there's a problem and you don't have all the kernel modules or tools then you're still pretty much guarranteed access to the file system by mounting it as Ext2 as support for that system is almost universal under Linux.

Re:Slightly OT (1)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116358)

Obviously (as you point out) a journallying filesystem is what you need. I went for Ext3 on my Debian servers.

But I thought Ext3 will only journal metadata -- which is clearly inadequate if you want to preserve data integrity over and above file system integrity.

Re:Slightly OT (2, Informative)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116434)

Actually, I believe that ext3 is the only filesystem to allow journalling of data above and beyond just metadata.

Use the mount option data=journal, see man mount for more information.

I do know that RieserFS has some "features" that are unexpected and can be agrivated by powerfailure during write.

But don't worry, Hans says it's designed that way, and your filesystem will be intact, even if /etc/fstab contains lines from /var/log/messages......

XFS is good, but cannot be shrunk. EXT3 can shrink, but I don't know about the others. I'm going to have to investigate JFS, which right now is the bastard stepchild, ignored by most......

Re:Slightly OT (2, Informative)

SoTuA (683507) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116441)

There are mount options that will journal only data, only the metadata (as most journaling filesystems do) or both.

Re:Slightly OT (5, Informative)

Tet (2721) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116446)

But I thought Ext3 will only journal metadata

No, in fact ext3 is one of the few that actually will journal data as well as metadata.

mount -t ext3 -odata=journal /dev/os/usr /usr

Re:Slightly OT (2, Insightful)

Der Krazy Kraut (650544) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116433)

The backwards compatibility is really not an issue anymore. Modern filesystems have been supported by all major distributions for years now. And if everything else fails, you can always use Knoppix [knoppix.de] , which can access pretty much everything.

Re:Slightly OT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116461)

In my experience the best, most robust journaling system is ReiserSf.

It recovers from disasters so reliably that I disconnected the UPS. If the power outage lasts any length of time you'll have to shut down anyway. I have never had ReiserFS fail to recover from any abnormal shutdown.

Slashdot filesystem (5, Funny)

Bronster (13157) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116193)

Maybe slashdot needs a filesystem update to one with more powerful meta-data support like something that can detect when the same URL has been used in more than one post within a certain time. Sheesh.

The real question . . . (4, Funny)

SquareOfS (578820) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116195)

. . . is which file system linuxgazette is running.

That is, before it melted.

Re:The real question . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116321)

It's there...just slow

I'd like to see how you well can handle 10,000 simultaneous connections!

Re:The real question . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116378)

I haven't had to do that since college.

Re:The real question . . . (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116467)

In Soviet Russia, 10,000 simultaneous connections handle YOU!

Re:The real question . . . (2, Funny)

MrZaius (321037) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116543)

I'd like to see how you...can handle 10,000 simultaneous connections!

Why, with CODA [cmu.edu] of course!

Dupe and Insight (1)

augustz (18082) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116197)

"Overall, one should choose the best file system based upon the properties of the files they are dealing with for the best performance possible!"

There you have the results!

duplicate on the same page (2, Insightful)

scrytch (9198) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116199)

Duplicate, spelling errors, and nothing but the short submission. Google is relaunching its blogger service -- tell me again what slashdot provides over it?

JPEGs? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116203)

Why are the charts JPEGs? What kind of idiot...

More surprising... (0, Offtopic)

Anti Frozt (655515) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116204)

will be their bandwith bill after having their site posted on /.

Re:More surprising... (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116242)

less surprising will be that it happened twice!

The question remains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116207)

....Will they be faster than WinFS

I'm shocked! (4, Funny)

lorcha (464930) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116211)

the results may surprise you.
The server at the link provided is not responding!

You're right, that was a total surprise.

Re:I'm shocked! (0, Redundant)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116452)

That's a surprise? You must be new here.

Failed test.... (1)

wpiman (739077) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116221)

Well what ever distrubution they have running right now obviously failed the /. test......

Surprised, indeed! (1)

JC-Coynel (250322) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116225)

"Over at Linux Gazette they ran some tests on popular Linux filesystes (ext2, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, xfs) and the results may surprise you."
The benchmark on spellcheckers surprises me as well...

Bad graphs (1)

Bazman (4849) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116226)

I wish he'd make his mind up on whether to put his bars horizontal or vertical - I'm getting a seriously cricked neck.

And then a couple of 3d ones, just for fun. Sheesh.

He should read some of Edward Tufte's stuff. [edwardtufte.com]

Re:Bad graphs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116268)

What do you expect from someone who thinks using JPEG for bar graphs is a good idea? (or worse: thought it was a stupid idea but did it anyway!)

I'm going to take "advice" from someone who isn't even bright enough to pick the right image format for graphs? Yeah... that will happen.

Re:Bad graphs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116585)

Yeah, I still can't believe how many people can't even lay out information in a usable format. First, give each graphed item its own color, then chart it from left to right, in order of "goodness" (bigger being better or smaller being better, depending on the attribute measured). How hard is it to do that?

Slashdottaed. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116227)

Here is a Mirrro [osnews.com]

Your graphs are unreadable (4, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116232)

And the reason is that you used jpegs. jpegs are for photographs; use gif for images such as this. The text won't end up unreadbly blurry and you'll save tons of disk space/bandwidth.

Re:Your graphs are unreadable (5, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116302)

>Use gif for images such as this.

No, use PNG.

If you're going to do it, do it right. Using GIFs is half-assed.

Re:Your graphs are unreadable (0)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116422)

>>Use gif for images such as this.

>No, use PNG.

>If you're going to do it, do it right. Using GIFs is half-assed.

Uhm.. No, use GIF. Using PNGs is stupid unless twhen done for no good reason.

Focus on what matters, such as:
o Web site accessibility (use image type supported by all major browsers)
o Bandwidth conservation (use GIFs 'cause they're very small but still of good-enough quality, just as the original poster said)

Re:Your graphs are unreadable (4, Informative)

B2382F29 (742174) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116584)

PNGs are smaller than GIFs, better compression, etc. (if you use same color-depth (8 bit)).

jpeg? (1)

woodhouse (625329) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116237)

The only thing that surprised me was that the author used jpeg for graph images. So not only are the colours in the legend not clear, and the text bearly readable, the images are actually much bigger than they would be with PNG or gif.

reiserfs? (4, Funny)

emc (19333) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116244)

I like Paul Reiser [imdb.com] as much as the next guy... but naming a filesystem after him?


I mean, really. "Mad about You" was a fine TV show... but this good?

How long until we see McKellenFS [imdb.com] ?

Re:reiserfs? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116347)

Well, he made it.
I could mention Linus's OS.

Re:reiserfs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116372)

oh come on.

That was funny.

here's the link to the original (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116251)

http://209.81.41.149/~jpiszcz/index.html

it's not slashdotted yet :)

The conclusion (2, Informative)

broothal (186066) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116274)

Site already /.'ed (when will slashdot ever learn to use a cache - either freecahce or make their own?)

Anyway, all rants aside, here's the conclusion from the tests (there were some graphs as well but I couldn't make sense of them anyway):

CONCLUSION

For those of you still reading, congrats! The conclusion is obvious by the "Total Time For All Benchmarks Test." The best journaling file system to choose based upon these results would be: JFS, ReiserFS or XFS depending on your needs and what types of files you are dealing with. I was quite surprised how slow ext3 was overall, as many distributions use this file system as their default file system. Overall, one should choose the best file system based upon the properties of the files they are dealing with for the best performance possible

Hrmmm (3, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116276)

See the whole article and a full range of hideously colored full sized graphs here [209.81.41.149] before it gets slashdotted too. Speaking of which, there has got to be better graph making software out there in Linuxland......

Re:Hrmmm (1)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116335)

the JPEGs were created useing the GIMP... but they really really really really look like they were created using excel.

Best Filesystem for Production System (2, Interesting)

dduardo (592868) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116277)

Right now I'm running reiserfs under gentoo and I recently lost some rather important data, which has made me a little skeptical in using it in a production system. Therefore I'm asking you guys which filesystem do you think is good for a webserver that will be handling a medium sized database and a significant number of transacations each day.

It works for mine! (4, Interesting)

MarcQuadra (129430) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116369)

I've been using ReiserFS _EXCLUSIVELY_ since about 2.4.11 and I've never had a single problem. It's important to format with the defaults and not specify 'special' arguments to mkreiserfs or you can run into trouble.

I've got three systems currently running reiser on Gentoo, from my PowerPC/SCSI/NFS/Samba file/print server to the ancient Compaq laptop with a 4GB drive. I've never had as much as a hiccup from ReiserFS.

Under what circumstances did you lose data?

Re:It works for mine! (1)

dduardo (592868) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116495)

I had some problems with a kernel panic and was forced to reboot the machine serveral times. I booted off the gentoo cd and did a resierfsck and it told me when it was done to rebuild the tree. I lost a about 20 files that where being served by apache. Most of them turned up in the lost+found, but the some weren't as lucky. They where the files being written to most, therefore i'm thinking they was an error during the write which caused the files to become corrupt.

Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116418)

I also got corrupted data on a gentoo system using reiserfs. I'm only using it as a desktop. I'm under the impression that non-journaled file systems are best for databases. A good database will cache in memory as needed and read/write to disk efficiently. I would think for a webserver and database with many transactions you'd want a filesystem that keeps the CPU utilization low. I use ext2 for my database and web server. But I'm no system admin, I'm far from an expert...

Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (3, Interesting)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116427)

I use JFS and it's been pretty good thus far. It's been around for a long time and it's backed by IBM, so that makes it a pretty safe bet for production use in my mind. I used to use Ext3 before that and experienced a few data losses that caused me to make a switch. I can't comment on Reiser or XFS since I haven't used 'em.

Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (1)

MacJedi (173) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116475)

Agreed. I'll further say that when I have had problems and filed bug reports the JFS developers have been very responsive.

Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (1)

ClippyHater (638515) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116432)

I ran into the same problem with Gentoo (probably not Gentoo-specific, though, as I used very mild flags). I avoid ReiserFS like the plague, now. Sure, ext3 is "slower" than reiserfs, but but data doesn't morph and my system is stable.

Of course, it's probably chipset related, as I'm sure you'll find others who've used reiserfs without a lick of trouble. For me, as I'm sure for everyone else, when it comes to a filesystem, slower is much better than faster but corrupt.

Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (1)

jjeffries (17675) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116440)

And in the same thread, I'd like to ask for opinions on an FS for a largish mail server; MTA will be either qmail or postfix using maildir. I'd planned to use reiserfs, too--anyone wanna advise me otherwise?

Re:Best Filesystem for Production System (3, Interesting)

Mr Smidge (668120) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116522)

I have ran reiserfs on my fileserver ever since it existed, and like you it corrupted once and I lost data.

However, I pinned it down to a faulty drive (Quantum Fireball, hehe, which never acted up under NTFS/Win2k.. oh well). I was close to blaming reiserfs, but once I put in a quality hard drive and reinstalled, it's run like clockwork. Perfectly.

There sure haven't been too many stabilty issues with reiserfs in my experience. Try another drive as a test and see if the same happens.

Slashdotted! (1)

sparcnut (775902) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116278)

Man, that site must have been running on the tester's machine (a P3-500). Slashdotted at 6 comments.

I managed to get the article, but by the time I had read through it all the site was completely gone.

Either that or the webserver was running ext3... slow as molasses by the test results.

More proof that Linux sucks. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116286)

If you look at those charts, you can see that the author rebooted into Windows and made the charts in MS Excel. Its just proof that there is no decent spread sheet for Linux!

The result is...... (0, Redundant)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116287)

... Slashdotted!!!

And that didn't surprise me at all ;)

Surprised... (1)

ErisCalmsme (212887) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116290)

I'm actually not surprised at the results, because the results, as usual, come down to: "the best filesystem is the one that is best for your needs". *sigh* I know that benchmarks can't determine things like that, but still a part of me just wants there to be a winner! I mean what good is a race where everyone wins?

Re:Surprised... (1)

ThogScully (589935) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116404)

I mean what good is a race where everyone wins?

Easy. I have a shot of finishing.
-N

Slashdotted (1)

arvindn (542080) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116298)

Mirror [ernet.in]

Article with larger images (the site had the larger images separately in a tarball)...

http://theory.cs.iitm.ernet.in/~arvindn/mirror/lin uxfs/piszcz_large.html

Not a clickable link to avoid hammering my poor server.

The tests don't show everything (4, Insightful)

Ignorant Aardvark (632408) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116326)

While they do measure stuff like access times in ms, they don't mention recovery times (chkfs) that are mentioned in ms for reiserfs and mins for ext2. And they don't mention reinstallation times (measured in hours) which occurs for ext2 a lot more than the journalling filesystems :-)

Speed means absolutely nothing (4, Insightful)

codepunk (167897) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116331)

Personally I could care less which file system is fastest. The most important aspect to a file system is how stable it is with my important data. All the speed in the world means absolutely nothing if the file system is not stable. EXT 3 has never ever let me down so I intend to stick with it, at least until RedHat releases their version of GFS.

Re:Speed means absolutely nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116498)

You could NOT care less

Any chance of including NTFS? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116333)

It would be nice to see an unbiased comparison with NTFS (though it would be difficult seeing as how you can't get it to run natively on *nix afaik)

Re:Any chance of including NTFS? (3, Interesting)

Lxy (80823) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116552)

I agree, it would be an interesting test. If I'm not mistaken, NTFS is a journaling filesystem as well. Its databasing design is really interesting to me.. is there something similar to this in linux journaling filesystems?

WinFS is designed to utilize the database feature, I'd be really curious about the results of searching for a file in NTFS/WinFS versus a linux file system. Hopefully NTFS linux support improves to the point where we can safely use it as a linux filesystem.

Data recovery is my biggest issue right now with linux. It's damn near impossible to rescue data off a failed linux disk. Even just deleting a file is tough to recover from. NTFS has a nice selection of tools (albeit non-free) to safely and reliably recover data.

ext3 slowness (5, Informative)

ReignStorm (247561) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116338)

from Linux ext3 FAQ [sapienti-sat.org]
Q: How can I recover (undelete) deleted files from my ext3 partition?

Actually, you can't! This is what one of the developers, Andreas Dilger, said about it: In order to ensure that ext3 can safely resume an unlink after a crash, it actually zeros out the block pointers in the inode, whereas ext2 just marks these blocks as unused in the block bitmaps and marks the inode as "deleted" and leaves the block pointers alone. Your only hope is to "grep" for parts of your files that have been deleted and hope for the best.

Re:ext3 slowness (2, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116393)

Personally, I see this as a mild security benefit. If I delete something, I want it GONE. It's not as good as an idle-time thread that 11-pass nukes unallocated sectors at random, but it'll do for a start.

So why does RedHat/Fedora continue to push EXT3? (4, Interesting)

jaylee7877 (665673) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116376)

I've never understood why they don't move to ReiserFS, at least for new installations. With Fedora you have to use a kernel option to enable ReiserFS installation and with RHEL you can't install to a ReiserFS root, even the reiserfs kernel module is in their kernel-unsupported RPM which means don't call for help. I love RH but they need to get the ball rolling on this one!

Re:So why does RedHat/Fedora continue to push EXT3 (2, Insightful)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116539)

I've never understood why they don't move to ReiserFS, at least for new installations.

Because for most uses, it's not the best option. So, if you're going to junk ext2 compatibility, why would you go to Reiser?

Defragmenting filesystem? (2, Insightful)

foolip (588195) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116410)

What I'd like is a file system for which there is actually a defrag-tool. Sure, ext2/3 may try to reduce fragmentation as much as possible, but when it happens (as is likely when you have a near-full disk) you've got little or no way of fixing it. Or actually there is a defrag tool for ext2 (not ext3) but my experiences with it are not the best -- it took forever and I don't know that it actually did anything to the disk (fdisk didn't report a 0% fragmentation level afterwards anyway).

Yah know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116499)

There just might be a reason you can't find many unix filesystem defragmenters. Like they don't need it.

I'm guessing you started out on computers using DOS or pre-NT Windows.

Re:Yah know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116547)

Umm, Wrong?

NTFS does need to be defragmented, so do unix filesystems. Take a long-lived, heavily used, ext2/3 filesystem that you have some idea of the throughput of, back it up it somewhere (not an image backup, please!), re-mkfs it, restore it, and see how fast it feels......

Re:Defragmenting filesystem? (1)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116508)

> as is likely when you have a near-full disk

Most defraggers won't run on a near-full disk, complaining about not having enought free space.

The old-school trick is to back up the file system to tape, reformat the disk and do a restore.

You are doing backups?

Re:Defragmenting filesystem? (1)

Sigma 7 (266129) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116564)

What I'd like is a file system for which there is actually a defrag-tool. Sure, ext2/3 may try to reduce fragmentation as much as possible, but when it happens (as is likely when you have a near-full disk) you've got little or no way of fixing it.
Defragmentation utilities have only been known for the FAT/FAT32/NTFS filesystems, mainly because there is a defragmenter included with basically everything past Dos 6.0.

Even so, not even the Windows defragmenters (Microsoft or Third-party) are perfect - even if the defragmentation is going at as fast as it can, it feels like a slow process for one reason or another. The defragmentation process also still leaves one or two fragmented files because those files are locked and can't be moved.

Surprise ? (1)

lazy_arabica (750133) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116436)

the results may surprise you.
What is not is surprising is that one can't read the results anymore.

dir_index option anyone? (1)

obi (118631) | more than 10 years ago | (#9116465)

I'd be curious to see how ext3 would fare in these tests (especially the "lotsa files"-tests) if you use mke2fs with the "-O dir_index" option.

Almost useful but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9116512)

... no pie charts?!? Line... Bar... 3D even... but no pie charts?!?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?