Is Ext3/Ext2 only possible?

[regomodo]

Hi, i'm trying to optimise my old laptop for speed as much as possible. To do this i'm experimenting with File Systems. From various sources jfs, xfs and reiserfs appear to be the best. reiserfs seems to be the best for small files (installation) but uses the cpu more than the other 2. JFS uses the least amount of cpu but is a little slower (something to do with latency) whereas xfs is a good balance and reccomended by Debian (i think).

The issue i'm having is instaling to puppy to a jfs partition. My HDD is setup as part1=3GB jfs. part2=650MB swap (doubt i really need that). After the files have been copied over the installation tries to setup Grub. Normally what i do is select MBR but this option is not available to me. It tries to setup in /dev/hda1 (where puppy is) but spits out an error about unable to mount and something about a r/w issue. I try to do it in expert mode, select MBR and the same thing happens again.

Is an installation not possible with jfs or should i setup a partitions specifically for GRUB?

[edit] just found the error

Code: Select all

mount: Mounting /dev/hda1 on /tmp/boot failed: Invalid argument

I couldn't mount '/dev/hda1' read-write!

[jonyo]

Swap partition is supposed to be ~ 2x available ram. Processor & ram info? What vers pup?

[Dougal]

[edit] just found the error

So is this settled?

I don't think Grub can handle jfs -- you'll need to look in the grub directory and see if it has a file for jfs.

Puppy doesn't handle jfs natively, either... but that can be easily rectified.

However, note that the FS benchmarks I read were pretty dubious...
For example, someone put a link in the DistroWatch comments last week to some benchmarks he made and said XFS wins -- but it was nonsense.

XFS and JFS are intended for servers and are good at handling large files.
For desktop usage (=small files) it usually turns out that reiserfs is fastest, beating ext3 by a little bit.
But as you mention, it uses the cpu more - and I've encountered quite a few reports of complaints about reliability.

I also have a feeling XFS and JFS will probably use the cpu more than the others -- XFS has that realtime-fsck thing, so it's bound to have an impact on the cpu... or am I wrong?

I say use NTFS: it must be the best, as everybody's using it, right? Hmm.

[regomodo]

@ Dougal. Unfortunately, no. It appears only Lilo can use any FS and i don't know how to edit it. I have just installed Debian Etch and Gutsy, Lilo didn't detect the Etch partition.

Once i know how to use Lilo i'll get back to puppy. ATM testing Gutsy Gibbon.

My reasoning for XFS came from here -

http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

It's not the only place i looked but i kept seeing xfs recommended all the time.

[Dougal]

It appears only Lilo can use any FS and i don't know how to edit it.

About six months ago there were some complaints from Ubuntu users about the installer allowing to use XFS but Lilo not being able to handle it. But it might have only been in reference to which partition Lilo itself was installed to.

My reasoning for XFS came from here -

http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

I'll have to lok at it (I have a feeling I migth have read it a year ago), but you should keep in mind that it's in the sysadmin tips section...