Hello.
I’m about to finally install openSUSE 12.2 x86_64, but when going through the process I got stuck with an option which I still cannot decide: file system. On 12.1 there was already Btrfs as an option, but I was told it wasn’t completely stable by the time being. Now I see it again, and I strongly wonder, is it stable now, or should I better keep with ext4?
Thanks for your help.
And on another small question, if my wireless card is exactly a BCM4311, is the process to install drivers still the same as 12.1? By using
sudo /usr/sbin/install_bcm43xx_firmware
Most still use ext4. I guess. Every now and then some problems show up here with Btrfs. My impression is that it is specialy the repair tools that are lacking. But I astand to be corrected.
And for your other question, you better create a new thread in the wireless forum. That is where the wireless gurus are supposed to search for nice problems/questions they can solve
On 2012-09-22 16:46, F style wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I’m about to finally install openSUSE 12.2 x86_64, but when going
> through the process I got stuck with an option which I still cannot
> decide: file system. On 12.1 there was already Btrfs as an option, but I
> was told it wasn’t completely stable by the time being. Now I see it
> again, and I strongly wonder, is it stable now, or should I better keep
> with ext4?
Me, I would use ext4.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
On 2012-09-22 17:06, F style wrote:
>
> And on another small question, if my wireless card is exactly a BCM4311,
> is the process to install drivers still the same as 12.1? By using
> sudo /usr/sbin/install_bcm43xx_firmware
Nononono. I refuse to answer this question. Please use a separate thread and post it in the
wireless forum.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
Ok, ok, sorry, already post that one in the corresponding forum.
So in the end, should I better keep with ext4?
Am 22.09.2012 18:06, schrieb F style:
> So in the end, should I better keep with ext4?
It depends on what YOU want (not what we want or use), which features do
you miss in ext4 which btrfs will give you?
If your answer is “I don’t know” or “none” then you have answered your
own question and stay with ext4.
If the answer is btrfs gives me feature xyz which I want eagerly the
answer is go for btrfs but keep in mind that it is still new (file
systems mature over years not months) and always keep good backups in
case something weird happens which you cannot repair.
Just my 2ct.
Btw I use lvm2 + ext4.
–
PC: oS 12.2 x86_64 | i7-2600@3.40GHz | 16GB | KDE 4.8.4 | GeForce GT 420
ThinkPad E320: oS 12.2 x86_64 | i3@2.30GHz | 8GB | KDE 4.9.1 | HD 3000
eCAFE 800: oS 12.2 i586 | AMD Geode LX 800@500MHz | 512MB | KDE 3.5.10
On 2012-09-22 18:06, F style wrote:
>
> Ok, ok, sorry, already post that one in the corresponding forum.
>
> So in the end, should I better keep with ext4?
It’s up to you to decide. btfrs is assumed stable, has definite advantages, but recovery in
case of problems is difficult, IMO. Just search for threads here with problems related to it
and jusdge for yourself.
For instance, keep a good backup and up to date.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
yes, make sure your online though and I got some weird crash of the install on the 1st try, 2nd try worked fine
Alas, you did not read the whole thread here. Else you would have seen that that question belongs to the Wireless forum and that the OP has reposted it there. Thus the place to post an answer is also there. Now you spoil this thread with a second subject and that makes a mess. 
JFS is pretty good,to bad it doesn’t resize,and it’s not an option on net install!I would say there’s only ext4 the available solution,I don’t know about reiser if it’s being developed and if it performs well(I didn’t had good experiences with it)XFS is good only with large files,and ext3,2 are old,btrfs is experimental,the choice is clear!
I do not think that is quite fair. XFS has been shown to have quite comparable performance to ext4. On a server I would consider xfs for its more advanced features; On a desktop I would just use ext4. I am quite sure btrfs would work fine, but I have had problems with it (running out of disk space without even having many files). Other than snapper an average user probably will not notice a difference.
Just a few remarks.
. Reiserfs is definitely not developed anymore.
. ext2 and ext3 can be seen as forms of ext4 with less features switched on. It is still possible to switch between them to some extend. You can e.g. change a current ext3 into an ext4. New files created will then be handled the ext4 way. It will then be a sort of mixture. And ext2 is just ext3/4 without journaling. Thus using ext2/3 is imho not using something “old” because you still use a lot of the same code and structures as ext4 and thus they are maintained.
Am 23.09.2012 10:56, schrieb nightwishfan:
>
> I do not think that is quite fair. XFS has been shown to have quite
> comparable performance to ext4.
I would say XFS has even a better performance than ext4. On the old
ecafe (see my signature) which I use as a playground for testing after
the machine died which I used in the past, I tested several options to
compare their performance (not in a scientific way just how the system
behaves). ext2 and xfs behaved good, ext4 introduced performance
problems on this underpowered system when doing heavy i/o (zypper dup
for example). ext2 has of course no journaling and is quite old, so xfs
is the better option.
I would consider it for everyday use as an alternative to ext4 and maybe
I will use it on my PC in the future.
btrfs has some outstanding features - no doubt, a lot of potential, but
when testing I could force it to be corrupted beyond repair, I never
succeeded to force ext4 into such a state (repeatedly power off by
unplugging the power supply doing heavy read/writes at the same time was
my test).
–
PC: oS 12.2 x86_64 | i7-2600@3.40GHz | 16GB | KDE 4.8.4 | GeForce GT 420
ThinkPad E320: oS 12.2 x86_64 | i3@2.30GHz | 8GB | KDE 4.9.1 | HD 3000
eCAFE 800: oS 12.2 i586 | AMD Geode LX 800@500MHz | 512MB | KDE 3.5.10
On 2012-09-23 09:36, Marius Timu wrote:
> I don’t
> know about reiser if it’s being developed and if performs well(I didn’t
> had good experiences with it)
Reiserfs is being slowly developed. At least, it is maintained. Yes, if it breaks, it does so
royally, but I think so do other journalled filesystems. Reiserfs is very good with small files.
> XFS is good only with large files,and
> ext3,2 are old,btrfs is experimental!
ext2 has advantages on small filesystems, like usb sticks.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
I am still using ext2, so I don’t completely agree with your assessment.
I only use ext2 with “/boot”, and I do that because I see no need for journaling with “/boot”. I did, at one time, try ext4 with journaling disabled. The advantage of ext2, is that on my next install the installer will retain ext2, while if I use ext4 with journaling disabled, the installer will retain ext4 but will use journaling.
In short, I use ext2 because it is - more or less - ext4 with journaling disabled, and the installer honors that on reinstall.
I do use ext4 for everything else. Your assessment is mainly correct, but it doesn’t allow for special requirements that might prefer a different file system.
Of course XFS doesn’t resize like JFS,so the advantage of ext4 is clear,for an average home PC user,I’m sure an advanced power user would know what to use!
Marius Timu wrote:
> Of course XFS doesn’t resize like JFS,so the advantage of ext4 is clear!
I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but for the benefit of anybody else
reading the thread please be clear that XFS certainly does resize.
xfs_growfs is the command to use. AFAIK so does JFS. See for example:
If you are using SSD drive(s), you will want to use EXT4 for its support of the TRIM mount option.
Will be part of a new paper I’m preparing which should greatly update existing documentaion installing openSUSE on SSD drives.
Am mainly putting my new, hghly optimized system through its paces to verify performance, decreased heat, reliability before publishing. If anyone is installing on SSD now and can’t wait a couple weeks or so, PM me and I’ll share my sources and rough draft.
TSU
On 2012-09-25 00:16, tsu2 wrote:
>
> If you are using SSD drive(s), you will want to use EXT4 for its support
> of the TRIM mount option.
>
> Will be part of a new paper I’m preparing which should greatly update
> existing documentaion installing openSUSE on SSD drives.
I don’t know how much is related, but I installed a rescue system on a usb stick, and the
recommendation was to create an ext4 filesystem with no journal.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)