Slashdot Mirror
How To Move Your Linux Systems To ext4
LinucksGirl writes "Ext4 is the latest in a long line of Linux file systems, and it's likely to be as important and popular as its predecessors. As a Linux system administrator, you should be aware of the advantages, disadvantages, and basic steps for migrating to ext4. This article explains when to adopt ext4, how to adapt traditional file system maintenance tool usage to ext4, and how to get the most out of the file system."
ext4fs is designed to be used in systems requiring many terabytes of storage and vast directory trees. It is unlikely the common desktop (or even, for that matter, the common server) will see appreciable performance increase with it.
Link to Ext4 entry on Wikipedia for people who aren't familar with it (like me).
...who are on the lookout for a new fs to entrust with keeping their precious data: make sure to check out btrfs ( http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/ ). It's a really neatly spec'd filesystem (with all the zfsish stuff like data checksumming and so on), developed by Oracle employees under GPLv2, which will feature a converter application for ext3's on-disk-format - so you can migrate from ext3 to the much more feature-packed and modern btrfs without having to mkfs anew.
On a related sidenode: I'm very happy with SGI's xfs right now. ext\d isn't the only player in the field, so please, go out and boldly evaluate available alternatives. You won't be disappointed, I promise.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
Step 1: Install Fedora 9
OK, all done!
Oh, please. ext2 had "undelete" capability, just as it had filesystem compression capability. Neither were ever implemented.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
IIRC, today's PCs have high-resolution timers available that surpass the old 14.318MHz clock chip. If you can't get accurate nanoseconds out of the timers yet, they'll just round the numbers off. No big deal.
BTW, NTFS uses 100ns timestamp granularity, and it was designed when systems were almost 100X slower than today. So it had a similar amount of overkill, but that certainly doesn't seem to have had any negative impact on the acceptance of NTFS.
The whole "undelete" thing is a DOS FAT stupidity. The *only* reason why people think that you *can* undelete is that the DOS FAT file system was designed in such a way that file changes could be recovered *IF* you managed not to change the file system too much. DOS being a mainly single tasker, with the exception of the standard "indos" flag games.
POSIX was not and should not be designed in such a way that "undelete" is reliably possible. That's like saying can I unlight that match. Can I unbreak that egg?
An unreliable system that may, on the odd chance that the file structure has not changed too much, recover files from a disk that have not been over-written yet is no replacement for NOT being an idiot and being careful when you delete something.
ext4 is the biggest waste of time and effort in Linux. There are already good extent based filesystems for Linux. Why anyone would consider using what is an experimental filesystem for a multi TB production filesystem is beyond me.
What ever they do XFS and JFS will have way more testing and use than ext4 will ever have. I just don't get the point of ext4. It would be far more useful to fix the one remaining issue with XFS, the inability to shrink the filesystem none destructively, than to flog the dead horse which is ext2/3 even more with ext4, which is not one disk compatible anyway.
Those features may be new to ext3, but not to the real competitors. I see nothing that might grant an edge over JFS or XFS. The real justifications will come from performance tests.
This reminds me of the recent NTFS article here, which actually suggested that since Hans Reiser is in jail and reiser4 is dead, we should consider NTFS. WTF? The ludicrousness of using NTFS as the primary filesystem is further justified in this article by its similar performance to ZFS, but both run in user-space (and are thus horrible in performance), so neither is really an option. What the heck is wrong with JFS and XFS?
Here are some real comparisons: First, Wikipedia's Comparison of file systems gets you started with a nice mapping of features. Second, a benchmarking of filesystems from 2006 which is still quite applicable (though it doesn't yet cover ext4). What we need is a comparison of EXT4 to XFS and JFS (et al), with EXT2/3 in there for reference.
Recall that the biggest reason for using ext3 is that it is supported best of all the filesystems. If all hell breaks loose, even Tomsrtbt (an ancient rescue floppy pre-dating knoppix) can fix it. Ext4 breaks this backwards-compatibility to ext2. Therefore, I see no reason to use it. One might as well use something more stable and proven, especially while we lack numbers suggesting it performs as well or better.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
This suggestion is broken for a few reasons. ...
.Trash directory at the same time.
Fifth, if you delete two files in different directories with the same name, both can't exist in the
This may help (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3">Wikipedia's ext3 entry</a>):
"Block size Max file size Max filesystem size
1KiB 16GiB 2TiB
2KiB 256GiB 8TiB
4KiB 2TiB 16TiB
8KiB 2TiB 32TiB
It should be noted that the 8 KiB block size is only available on architectures which allow 8 KiB pages (such as Alpha)."
The article doesn't say this explicitly enough: if you like to keep your data, DON'T USE EXT4 YET! It is still in highly experimental stage. Try it out, fine... but not as the only copy of your data.
Anybody who advocates NTFS has never worked with directories with a large number (>100,000) of files under one directory tree. Just deleting one file can make the disk seek for several seconds, during which the filesystem is completely frozen. I guess it's reshuffling its entire B-tree.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Sorry, but no way I'm gonna have a script that contains "sudo rm -rf" on my system...