Hey guys, Just a quicky, I'm using linux for my file server/NAS box and I'm wondering what file system I should use as ext3 seems to have huge overheads and my new 1TB drive that I just shung in has just 817GB available for writing to rather than what would be possible using other file systems. The issue I have at the moment is that ideally I want to use a file system that has support within Windows should I ever move to Windows Server (which is possible as I get it through Technet and need to really use it to learn stuff for my MCSA for work). The main suggesions from google seem to be JFS and XFS but they don't appear to have any good support within windows and NTFS in linux appear to be shakey and FAT.. well... yeah, I'm just not going there. Any ideas?
If you want to use it within Windows, you're pretty much limited to NTFS or FAT. NTFS should be fully supported by Linux now through ntfs-3g, and FAT is just too limited... You can install a patch in Windows so that it can read from EXT2/3 partitions. But personally I wouldn't bother with Windows compatibility... But that's just me... I'd go for EXT4, it's a huge improvement over EXT3, or JFS/XFS or maybe Reiser. It all depends on your usage... You'll always lose a huge chunk for partitioning tables and the likes on big drives.
Get windows to support ext2/3 with ext2ifs. NTFS is a poor choice of file system, due to it being so prone to fragmentation.
if you are running linux, use XFS. Its a journaling FS and has been developed for large read/writes (aka movie files). If however you want to bung on lots of small files then you should use Reiser FS. if windows is your thing, NTFS is really your only option in this day and age but is FAR from the best. EDIT:: I use XFS at home on my linux server. Its the only computer with linux on it as the rest are all Windows based. I have no problem connecting and transfering files to and from it using SAMBA shares assuming the permissions are set up correctly. summery, use linux, run XFS and make sure you have SAMBA running so your windows clients can see the NAS under network neighbourhood.
Yet ext4 outperforms XFS, ReiserFS, and just about everything else. And it's now stable. So another vote for that. You will need a 2.6.28 kernel to use the stable release, AFAIK. Which probably requires waiting Fedora 11/Ubuntu 9.04, unless you're into to Debian/Gentoo, in which case.. Carry on. I run ext3 on all my storage drives purely because if something goes tits-up with my Linux install, I still have Windows XP dual-booted. And the IFS works fine: albeit, you lose your ext journalling, so it's essentially ext2 all over again. It really is much simpler to forget about Windows.
ext4 Cheesecake... (bit-tech translated "f.t.w." in to cheesecake?) ntfs sucks... i qould go with HFS + in a heart beat, but guess what OS only supplies it is? OSX... so enough said there... Im redoing my linux-top with ubuntu 9.04 and ext4... ext3 was good, so we know what ext4 will be like yea, but when does ext3 go tits-up? Linux has never even froze/crashed on me. Cant say the same about OSX or Windoze... IFS is good if you need to access linux stuff from inside windows
Well, the file system never breaks... But I run my disks under dmraid, so it's not un-heard of for me to have an unbootable system after an upgrade.
i'm using ext4 on my desktop right now, and its fast as hell. it's also new though, i'd put something more tested on a NAS. my fileserver is running ext3 right now, which seems to work quite nicely. if you're going for windows compatibility though, i'd stick with ntfs. the linux drivers for ntfs are not perfect, but they are much much better than the ext2/3 drivers for windows. edit: oops, i see this thread is a month old. what did you end up choosing?
There is a small problem with EXT4 though that has been found. IF you just transferred some data to be written and you loose power there is a chance that the data will not be there when you get power back because of the the delayed write function of EXT4. More on the details here http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/ext4-on-current-710620/?highlight=ext4 https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781 *However... You can change the settings for the delayed write via sysfs to something you are more comfortable with. Although this will come at a cost of performace. (Whether it is noticeable or not has still yet to be debated)
So Ext4 is a little buggy with power.... not a big deal if your hooked to a UPS right? so right now the top file systems to use for a NAS/Server are: 1)ext4 2)ext3 3)ReiserFS/XFS Am I missing anything?
OR a system crash, that has been known to cause some problems with EXT4 and the delayed write function. Currently I have JFS running on my main Linux Machine and it is also fast. I would add that to the RFS/XFS section.
is ext4 really that much faster though? ive been doing some looking on the tubes and XFS looks to be faster on the read/writes but it prob. so small you'd never see the differenece. When i set up my file server i chose XFS (so yea im bias) as thats what google recomended (large read/writes)
true... so Ext4, ext3, RFS/XFS/JFS hows JFS working for you C-Sniper? Im thinking of using a different distro for my home server and wanted to try a different file system (ive always used ext 2 or ext3)
