0

i get 3 choices of file sytems when i install linux
ext2
ext3
riser(spelling??)

anyways what are the features of each and which is better to use, meanin most stable, supported and reliable

7
Contributors
6
Replies
7
Views
14 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Ron McKown
0

i get 3 choices of file sytems when i install linux

ext2 -- ext3 -- ReiserFS

...what are the features of each and which is better to use, meaning most stable, supported and reliable

ext2 is what might be called the "standard" file system for Linux.
ext3 is basically ext2 with journaling added.
ReiserFS is a more-sophisticated journaling file system with some internal database stuff -- part of what MS Longhorn is moving toward.

A journaling filesystem basically keeps track of hard drive activity in such a way that makes recovery from a hard crash or power failure much easier. When fsck (FileSystem ChecK) is run at next boot, it has a table to look at so some data can be salvaged that might otherwise be lost; the fsck process also runs much more quickly than under ext2 or FAT.

I recommend the use of ext3, rather than ReiserFS, for home use. Though either works well, ReiserFS has a somewhat higher overhead. Further, Reiser4 is nearing release. That having been said, I am running Reiser myself -- partly as a learning tool.

Another advantage of ext3 in this context is that most tools that support ext2 also support ext3--though most tools support Reiser nowadays, as well.

0

ext2 is what might be called the "standard" file system for Linux.
ext3 is basically ext2 with journaling added.
ReiserFS is a more-sophisticated journaling file system with some internal database stuff -- part of what MS Longhorn is moving toward.

A journaling filesystem basically keeps track of hard drive activity in such a way that makes recovery from a hard crash or power failure much easier. When fsck (FileSystem ChecK) is run at next boot, it has a table to look at so some data can be salvaged that might otherwise be lost; the fsck process also runs much more quickly than under ext2 or FAT.

I recommend the use of ext3, rather than ReiserFS, for home use. Though either works well, ReiserFS has a somewhat higher overhead. Further, Reiser4 is nearing release. That having been said, I am running Reiser myself -- partly as a learning tool.

Another advantage of ext3 in this context is that most tools that support ext2 also support ext3--though most tools support Reiser nowadays, as well.

God, ext3 is great; saved my ass big time ;P

0

Windows can only see (at least win2k and XP, I don't know about 2003 server) NTFS, VFAT (FAT/FAT32). The system itself can also see and uses (for hidden operations) FAT16 (16bit partishion.. what do ya know..)..
Ilya

0

i've used Reiser, XFS and EXT3. they are all very similar in functionality, but their performance can differ.
really, they all have their plus and minuses.

if you need to ask the question which filesystem type you should go with, then for you I recommend EXT3.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.