ext4

I most cases when the file system has a heavy work load, I have found ext4 works better than ext2 or ext3.

I'll stay with ext4 and if I decide to mess with Windows XP offline, I'll use FAT32 and never NTFS. Always using LMDE or a Debian Distro.

DOS 6.22 is the best Linux filing system.

It's still running strong on my original IBM 286.


Linux Torroids is the best programmar ever.

Zfsonlinux.org

Let's say I am a bit surprised by this post. I'd like to know why you think that something that isn't a filesystem is the best 'Linux filing system'.

ext4 as native and the most stable to work specifically with Linux.

I have to agree with rknichols, in that the only time the file system has been an issue on my ubuntu systems is when I have had to run the fcsk command as admin. In the versions of Puppy Linux that default to the ext2 file system I have on my 286 antiques with the 100mb hard disks, it takes longer to do the disk check than on the newer one or two terrabyte systems. The ext4 seems more robust in that it tolerates the kids improperly shutting down the computers without corruption. ext4 for me!

My preferred File System is ext4

Actually I am not sure when I started using ext3 but it was first introduced in November 2001 and was a journalling file-system whereas ext2 was not. If you had worked on Redhat distributions such as 2, 3, 4 and 5 you could have used ext3 as your preferred file-system. I could be wrong here but I think it wasn't till Redhat 6 (introduced November 2010) that ext4 (introduced October 2008) became supported although it was possible to install ext4 on RHES version 5 and I think 4.

Basically ext3 has had a fairly long run of about seven years and is still used even today.

Personally I switched to ext4 fairly early since I use Fedora as my main Linux distribution and I have found that the performance of ext4 is so much better than that of ext3. This is not to say ext3 is bad it is just that ext4 has a better performance and even ext4 will be superseded one day

No matter what file-system you use you still need to perform backups.

While I have been using ext4 since it was introduced to Fedora I normally format usb keys with FAT32 although I have tried ExFAT and was quite surprised at how much better it was. The problem you find with ExFAT and even NTFS is not all devices can read those file-systems so you are stuck with FAT32 for USB portability. However if you are running a MS Windows OS then you really should be using NTFS. Actually my backup disks have an ext4 file-system on them.

I should also note that ExFAT and NTFS have patents on them however you can create those file-systems under Fedora and many other Linux distributions although I would suggest you don't do this on commercial systems. As for running MS Windows XP why bother since it is not a supported product any-more you would be better off with MS Windows 7 or Ugg! MS Windows 8.

May I suggest UFS for USB drives (as suggested to me by members here)? It gets around the tiny file size limtations of FAT32 if nothing else.

Sadly I still use a couple devices that will only support USB sticks with very basic support for FAT.

Like others, I use EXT2 for /boot and EXT4 for / and /home.

All my USB devices are formatted to FAT32 because of interoperability.

Have never bothered to even try using other systems though I might in the future.

Care to elaborate?
Why did you switch?

I still use ext2 for /boot and Reiser for pretty much everything else.