Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Data Storage Operating Systems Software Businesses Red Hat Software Linux

Fedora 11 To Default To the Ext4 File System 161

ffs writes "The next release of Fedora, 11, will default to the ext4 file system unless serious regressions are seen, as reported by heise online. The LWN story has a few comments extolling the virtues of the file system. Some benchmarks have shown ext4 to be much faster than the current default ext3. Some of the new features that matter for desktop users are a faster file system check, extents support (for efficiently storing large files and reducing fragmentation), multiblock allocation (faster writes), delayed block allocation, journal checksumming (saving against power / hardware failures), and others. The KernelNewbies page has more information on each feature. As is the extfs tradition, mounting a current ext3 filesystem as ext4 will work seamlessly; however, most new features will not be available with the same on-disk format, meaning a fresh format with ext4 or converting the disk layout to ext4 will offer the best experience."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fedora 11 To Default To the Ext4 File System

Comments Filter:
  • by Forge ( 2456 ) <> on Friday January 23, 2009 @11:23AM (#26574765) Homepage Journal
    Clustered file systems and local file systems are of necessity different. Most of what makes a clustered FS useful would be pure dead weight on a local FS.

    What I would like to see are clustered FSs which are easier to set up. I.e. You go to the 1st machine and start up the cluster config program and it asks: "Is this the 1st machine in your cluster?" Once you say yes there, you go to the other machines in turn, fire up the same program and say no to that question and enter the IP of the 1st machine.

    Once all those machines are added, the next step is to select. "Add Local disk to cluster pool" and then you select partitions on your local hard drive that should be in the pool. They don't have to all be the same size either.

    Once you have done that for each machine (either by going from one to the next or using the the tool on the primary node to add disks from each one (or a whole group of them if they are already partitioned in the same way).

    Then you just start mounting this virtual disk and dumping files to it.

    The technology exists to do this. The problem is that each time it's done' its a manual process tantamount to a programing job. Who want's to take up the task of tying all the pieces together to make the setup feel this simple for the user.

    Additional functionality (like tuning the FS for Database or Email usage and failover hierarchy) would be added over time and in a way that dose not detract from the simplicity of that basic setup.
  • by Dogun ( 7502 ) on Friday January 23, 2009 @11:28AM (#26574835) Homepage

    Because disks are buffered, and fsyncing after every call (or forgetting to do so entirely) is silly.

    I suppose somebody cares about how well they can expect their 124GB file to stream to disk, but for the rest of us mortals, we care about journalling support (check), a toolset (mostly check), and common-case performance, which in the *nix world involves a lot of reading and writing of small files.

    I'd also like to see how these things perform under load, or when multiple benchmarks are running simultaneously.

  • Re:A few answers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Orange Crush ( 934731 ) on Friday January 23, 2009 @11:57AM (#26575189)
    ^I'm less concerned about what the guy did who spearheaded its design, and more about it becoming abandonware.
  • by SaDan ( 81097 ) on Friday January 23, 2009 @12:17PM (#26575495) Homepage

    People are looking forward to ext4 because ext3 has performed so poorly compared to ReiserFS. No one wants to touch ReiserFS, regardless of its performance advantages over anything out today, because Hans was a psycho.

    In a previous job, we tried everything we could to use ext3 for one of our server-based products, but the performance was never good enough compared to ReiserFS v3.

    Hopefully the ext4 folks have learned how to implement all the excellent ideas Hans Reiser came up with between ReiserFS v3 and ReiserFS v4.

  • by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <> on Friday January 23, 2009 @12:26PM (#26575651) Journal

    Not to mention ext3 doesn't lose random OS files in the wake of a sudden power failure like reiserfs does. I might be alone on this event but after it happening on 3 different systems at 3 different times I'd think it would be documented more. I've always thought reiserfs was overrated and even if there is a speed increase data integrity is a lot more important to me.

    It doesn't bother me that the creator is a convicted murderer, it does bother me that the file system gets away with murder all the time.

  • by Forge ( 2456 ) <> on Friday January 23, 2009 @12:34PM (#26575795) Homepage Journal
    We all have our talents.

    I have bartered PC repair and System admin services for competent legal advise, accounting service and even medical care on one occasion (Every desktop in my dentist's office had the "worm of the month").

    Sensible people do what they are good at and wherever possible get others to do the other things.

    This little project may take a day or a few months for a pearl wizard. I'm not sure. I do know it would take me years, if it got done at all.
  • by incripshin ( 580256 ) <markpeloquin@g m a i l . com> on Friday January 23, 2009 @12:45PM (#26576009) Homepage
    I upgraded, and eventually it erased my root directory. I'm presently trying to figure ext4 out and writing a program that should recursively recover files from /etc and my home directory. I recommend nobody use ext4 for at least five years.
  • by incripshin ( 580256 ) <markpeloquin@g m a i l . com> on Friday January 23, 2009 @02:41PM (#26578317) Homepage
    Nobody starts backing up until their first disaster.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling