[I Fix 4 U]

Hey, I was wondering what would be the best filesystem for my habits.

I need a filesystem for a non-boot, storage partition. It will be roughly 125GB large and will house a decent amount of large files. By large files I mean anything ranging from larger music and photos to very large files such as video and disk images. Smaller files (less than 5 megabytes) will be housed there too.

What are yall's opinions?

It has to be supported by default in *buntu 6.06 (LTS).

I'm willing to answer more questions as I don't want to change filesystems later on.

Thanks in advance.

[saikee]

Not done it yet but I was told the best way is to go with Ext3.

You then install a driver inside Windows to read/write it.

Good for large files and certainly no limitation of the 4Gb of fat32.

Should be pretty safe too.

[Elvandil]

If you don't have any files over 4 gigs, I usually go with FAT32 since it is then accessible by nearly any other OS.

[I Fix 4 U]

I don't have any compatibility worries as this is a Linux-only machine. Ext3 is a possibility. With that being said, any other suggestions?

I hear XFS may be good for my usage however I am worried about some issues I have read about involving power failure and data loss.

[vtel57]

I run a storage partition on two of my drives. One is specifically for Windows and is NTFS. The other is for Linux, but with easy access through Windows. It's FAT32. I'm running 5 Linux distros on my system + Windows (which I rarely boot to). All have no troubles accessing (read, write, execute) the FAT32 partition.

Luck!

[I Fix 4 U]

As I've said before: I do not need Windows support. I only require the filesystem to be compatible with Linux.
FAT32 cannot be used because it doesn't support the large filetypes which I will be using, and isn't nearly as efficient as other options.

[vtel57]

Then my vote would be for EXT2, since you probably won't need journaling on a storage partition.

Luck!

[prunejuice]

ext2 = rock solid

[I Fix 4 U]

Will lack of journaling slow boot and other processes? There is a lot of data there, 125GB will be accessed a decent amount of times, and there's at least 35GB free space which will be used to add more files of varying sizes.

[fenderfreek]

I'd say ext2 if absolute stability is necessary, ext3 for maximum error-checking. If you're not going to subject your filesystem to the worst possible conditions, then I wouldn't worry about having journaling either - the performance difference is negligible.

*Side note on EXT drivers and Windows - I used them on my laptop which boots Linux and Win, and each time I booted Win, not only could it not read the EXT3 properly, it corrupted my filesystem, so I had to fsck it next time I booted. I think EXT2 support is ok, but EXT3 needs some work. Just a caveat emptor...

[coolpcguy]

what about reiserfs?

[O111111O]

reiserfs is good, however XFS is better (and there's alot of kernel support)

Do XFS, I've posted iozone test results in here before. It rocks, and it does journal.

I have production systems with multiple 100-200gb LUNs that use XFS.