• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Optimized Linux Fileserver Filesystem

B

burton

Junior Member
Very soon (once the hardware gets shipped) I will be rebuilding my fileserver as 2 x RAID-1 arrays with 200 GB PATA 7200 RPM 8MB cache ATA 100 WD hard drives. I will be using a Highpoint RocketRAID 133 controller. The host system is running Redhat 9.

Now, so that you don't just think I'm quoting specs, now for the question: What is the most efficient and reliable linux filesystem for this server's intended purpose of hosting mostly mp3 and video files?

I'd appreciate both opinions, as well as hard research and technical analysis.
 
http://linuxgazette.net/102/piszcz.html An in depth look at all 4 (dear god, don't use ext2) of the journaling filesystems.

Different fses are better at different things. However, the difference is so slight that you will hardly notice it, except for ext3. I'd shy away from ext3, because it was designed not for performance, but for backwards-compatability with ext2. I voted for reiserfs just because it has worked better and been stabler, IMHO.
 
This probably belongs in OS, since it isn't really "highly technical." 😉

ext3 and xfs are probably the only ones in high use that are worth using. ReiserFS changes too much, and has been awfully mean to data in the past. But if you keep your backups up to date and don't mind restoring from them, reiser is probably a good choice. I haven't seen much about jfs out there, so I'd be hesitant to suggest it. Plus it's supposedly based on the OS/2 jfs isntead of the AIX jfs. Not positive though.
 
xfs is a safe bet.

reiser4 would be absolutely perfect for what you're doing as it's insanely fast for multiple IO stuff, but it's still not 100% finished IIRC. A lot of people have gotten it to work stably, but a lot of others are still having problems.
 
Unless your serving to 1000s of clients and you need every last ounce of speed then you should just go with whichever one is most stable.
 
malikchen posted a great link. i used that same article when i was choosing file systems a few weeks ago. you said fileserver, but think about the types of files you will be serving. linux is great because you get so many choices rather than being locking in NTFS/FAT.
 
either xfs or ext3. With more leaning to xfs.

It's as about as good as your going to find anywere in any OS.

JFS is great, but xfs is more likely to have support if your using a rescue cd or whatnot. Ext3 would be best if compatability is the primary worry. It's backwards compatable with ext2 and that is supported by everyone and their mom. Except MS of course.
 
What a great set of responses! Thanks everybody, XFS looks like the way to go (which wasn't too surprising).
 
yep, XFS is definitelly what you want to use. Look at the link that MalikChen posted above, it clearly shows that you don't want to use ext2, or ext3. It also showed that XFS is a very good performer when you are dealing with big file sizes, or big filesystems.
 
I haven't used JFS in linux, so i voted for XFS, however JFS is worth consideration... I loved it in AIX. It should be as fast or faster than XFS and as robust.

I'd say those are the only two choices though ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top