JFS or EXT3?

Which filesystem should I use for a laptop? I've heard that JFS performs better, but I have JFS on one desktop and EXT3 on another desktop, but I could not easily figure out which is actually better.
So which is better for a laptop? (Of course, I'm looking for performance but if one of the filesystems is better in another way, that can help me decide.)

 

I wouldn't use JFS or XFS (throwing that in for good measure) unless there's a really special need. I've researched those filesystems a few weeks ago and did not see any good reason for a home user to switch to them. Yes, I've seen some benchmarks that showed better performance in JFS and XFS over ext3. But I've also seen other benchmarks that led me to believe that the supposed performance advantages of those 2 filesystems over ext3 are not all that clear. None of the benchmarks I've seen convinced me that there would be a clear performance advantage for a normal user. (Unfortunately, I did not save the URLs of the pages I found.)

There are disadvantages with going with JFS or XFS. They are not as prevalent as ext3 so support is not as good. An ext3 filesystem can be resized bigger or smaller but neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller (they can both be made bigger). I want to be able to resize as I need.

The only thing I did when I installed Ubuntu on my new laptop this summer was to add LVM to my partitioning scheme because I wanted the capability to do snapshot a filesystem in order to be able to continue working while backups are happening. (Usually, if you continue working during a backup, you are asking for trouble because you may be sending files in an inconsistent state to the backup and if you restore inconsistent files that's as good as garbage.)

 

Also realize that the filesystem management tools for EXT3/EXT2 are much more mature than for pretty much any other filesystem under Linux. JFS has some attractive options, such as the Extents capabilities which makes fragmentation minimal, but I personally don't see it as enough to make it worthwhile over EXT3, which has much wider support.

Can't say as either will really hurt the machine, though

 

Can Windows see JFS?

 

Not last time I checked. Windows barely sees EXT2/EXT3.

 

Yea, I checked if Ext2 IFS could see it. But no mention.

 

I've used explore2fs in XP to read files off of ext2/ext3 filesystems without any problem. I've seen drivers available for read/write support but I've never used them.

 

Cool, didn't know that you could read ext3 from XP, gotta try this tonight. Thanks for the tip.

 

An ext3 filesystem that has been cleanly unmounted can be used as an ext2 filesystem. That allows tools that support ext2 properly to access an ext3 filesystem without problem.

 

That works because ext3 stores files the same way as ext2. Basically, ext3 is just ext2 + journaling.

 

I disagree. XFS shows very strong performance advantages when working with large files, or directories containing many files. The differences are huge. Don't believe me? Here's a test. Create two equal sized partitions on the same block device (for consistency). Next, create a file that's fairly large, lets say 8.5 GB (DVD ISO size). You find that XFS creates it faster. Now delete that file with a simple 'rm'. You'll find it's almost instant on XFS while ext3 takes some time to delete it. The differences in performance are not subtle.

Can you site any examples here? It's not a very useful comment unless you can back it up. I've found no difference in "supportability" between the two aside from bootloader support. Ext3 is developed/supported by Linux geeks while XFS and JFS are heavy-duty, enterprise class filesystems developed by IBM and SGI respectively, and are FAR more mature and "proven" than ext3 is. JFS and XFS were designed from the ground up for super-duty workloads and enterprise-class reliability - IBM and SGI sell / support their Linux servers with these filesystems for the most demanding enterprise environments, so claiming they're not well supported sounds a bit silly!

It wasn't very long ago that NO filesystems could shrink BTW. Just like growing, it's a good thing and all filesystems will implement it very soon. Besides, shrinking a FS is a much less common operation than growing it is.

FWIW, I use ext2 for /boot, ext3 for /, and XFS for /home and /home2.

 

What tests did you run and what were the results? What does "Better" mean? What are your requirements? You're question is a bit too vague to really give a meaningful answer to.

Laptop vs. Desktop is irrelevant - it's WHAT you intend to do with it that counts.

 

That is not a good simulation of how the average workstation user uses a filesystem. Try again.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, sorry.

How is that important?

If I'm using my entire disk and I'm going to grow one of the partitions, then obviously, I'm going to have to shrink another partition.

So you're just trying to defend your choice.

 

Sure it is. You're asserting that no "average workstation users" copy or author DVD discs on their computer?

Um, you made the assertion, it's up to you to site a reference. You don't have much writing experience, it seems.

Um, because it's a brand new feature. It's not some hot proprietary secret that's been around for years. There wasn't even any demand for it until recently, and as a result, all filesystem vendors are in the process of implementing it. Of course, some will have the feature integrated before others do. It's just a feature - not some architectural design.

Sounds like you should have put a little more effort into planning your partition layout. As they say, measure twice and cut once...

Not my choice - the choice of IBM, SGI, and tens of thousands of enterprise computers around the world. But I guess that's not relevant, is it?

 

Just curious, what's your reason for going with ext3 on /? To read it from Windows?

I'm currently planning on going with XFS on both / and /home but am curious to hear your reasoning for using ext3 for /.

 

No Windows here. The reason I went with ext3 for / is that all my audio / video data that I need a fast filesystem for lives in /home and /home2. Since / only contains system files and doesn't really need high performance, I just went with the default fs type there.

Since I have /boot on a separate filesystem, really, I could make / whatever fs type I wanted. FYI- You need your kernel to live on an ext3 partition to boot it, so if you do not have a separate /boot filesystem, your / must be ext3.

 

Actually, grub doesn't require the kernel to live on an EXT2/3 partition. From this link:

 

I currently have my /boot partition on ext2 and my / partition on XFS, and have done this for the last 4 laptops I've had. The only reason I have /boot on ext2, is because I thought I had to. Now that Pita's linked to the current grub features, I'm gonna play around with it, and see if I can have my entire Linux system on one partition with the FS being XFS.

My caveats are;

1) I never read my Linux partition from another OS

I always read my Windows partition from Linux (with ntfs-3g)

2) I don't need to change my partition sizes

When I go long enough, I'm usually finding a reason to rebuild my entire system, (like getting a new laptop or hard drive), which allows me to start fresh.

3) I learned how to set it up.

I figure that the OP should use the file system they are comfortable with, and if they're not comfortable with any, use the one that is most prevalent, like EXT. Once they fool around with Linux enough, they will probably get an urge to try something new, like XFS/JFS, and then at that point they can try them out. It's what I did. FWIW, as lupin's pointed out, I've seen definite performance advantages with XFS, especially with both large files, and large file systems.

 

So far I'd have to agree with Lemur-- better off just staying with ext3 unless you know your stuff.

I've messed around with Jfs, Xfs, and ReiserFS for a long time now. Each has their benefits.
For me I've found that mixing filesystems each at different mount points has really increased my performance. My mountpoint/fs are as follows:
/ xfs
/var xfs
/home reiserfs
/boot ext2

I've found that by doing this I can use each filesystem to it's advantage. I dont have to resize my partitions much so it all works out dandy for me.

just my two cents.