Which file system do you prefer?

sablabra

sablabra

sablabra

Associate
Joined
17 Dec 2005
Posts
1,218
I've been fooling around with a few distros the last week, but I can't help but wonder which file system I should use. :confused: So far I've been using ext3, but would any of the other file systems be any faster? What are the pros and cons for each file system? I'm only using linux as a desktop computer, no server use so far. :)

Thanks.
 
Ok, so I should really just stick to ext3? But if I want to convert my computer into only using linux (getting rid of vista dualboot), would it be wise to format all my ntfs partitions used for storing stuff (games, apps, movies, music etc.) to ext3?

I'm not quite familiar with the file system used in linux yet. Normally I would use one partition for windows, one for apps/games and one or two for downloaded stuff. With the linux distros I've tested so far I've set up one called / which I guess is the root thingy, one called swap for swap file and one called home for documents etc. But could I make another ext3 partition or two only for downloaded stuff? I'd hate to lose all my files every time I reinstall linux...
 
pingwing said:
Just set up a partition to be mounted as a folder like /home/(your name)/downloads or something like that. Its a slightly different way to the default windows way but is a little more tidy (and is separate from your install aka you can do reinstalls and just remount the partition as that folder).
Click to expand...

OK I'll give that a go. But the partition I'm mounting, is there any advantage in making it ext3 or should I just stick with ntfs?
 
Last edited:
.walls said:
linux - reiserfs (speed, speed, speed baby!)
solaris - zfs (can't beat it, really)
windows - ntfs (is there any other competitor?)
ESX - vmfs (duh!)
Click to expand...

So I take it reiserfs would be the fastest one then? Are there any major downsides to reiserfs when comparing it to ext3?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom