JFS is also mature technology just as I and my systems are mature. Some day EXT4 will grow up and emerge from beta-testing but until then I will choose JFS for systems that matter.

I also use JFS, very stable, and now benchmarks very fast on SSDs, in fact faster than btrfs.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...38_large&num=1

Of particular note, ext4 is only used by people because it is the default. If another filesystem were the default people would soon forget about ext4. I honestly think ext4 is the filesystem that is outdated and should be replaced. It uses a B-tree, whereas modern filesystems use a B+ tree (like NTFS, ReiserFS, NSS, XFS, JFS, ReFS, and BFS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%2B_tree
There have also been a number of issues with the ext4 writeback mode causing data loss, and for a while it was the default mode.

XFS would by my second choice after JFS.

1 members found this post helpful.

It's not an "issue" for Linux users.

A scan of your posting history shows that most of your earlier posts were similarly scornful, condescending and unconstructive. Not to mention insincere: your "question" is what the replies to this thread were already answering. You've been behaving like this for close to a decade. Please stop.

I tried many FS for years.
Ext4 is good, secure but not fast enough. Btrfs is a pity. Reiser was particularly fast but in the meantime not sure, I lost too many critical files(v3).
Finally, my choice is XFS because, it's fast, quite sure (I suffered from empty files due to a crash, particularly with KDE).
JFS (Jesus For Safety), I don't trust... Sorry, each of us can have its own opinion, noop! :-p (joke).

In fact, I don't have a real preference for a filesystem, it depends a lot on what I require from it, so, I must compose between speed, security and evolution.

1 members found this post helpful.

I'm still using ext4 and quite happy with it!

I have used most of the Linux file systems during my 20 years as a Linux-only computer user and find the most stable to be JFS though I liked XFS that I ran on a server, that would be 2nd in line for me. I tried BtrFS way too early I think (2010) and was greatful for the backups I took as the HDs were pretty messed up (still don't know what went wrong). Read about it being considered stable as of mid 2013 so I am tempted but still reluctant from my earlier experience. I may wait for encryption to be implemented (or is it already??). Many interesting features, interesting B-tree variant.

skikir: as for the "geek" comment, large server systems real worlders use Linux or Unix, a tiny fraction of the Unix slice use OS X (server version).
As for web servers: 37% Linux, 33% Windows, 30% Unix (whereof a small part OS X but mostly FreeBSD, HP-UX, AIX and Solaris).
Supercomputers use Linux to 97%, 2.6% use other nix:es (not OS X).

That's the real world of real computing ...

1 members found this post helpful.

Started out with ext3 back in 2008 I think and using ext4 now and quite happy with that.

ext4

As a typical desktop user, I've not found much need for much more than ext4. I think it's a common default and so I like to pretend that counts for more than the alternatives. I'm eyeballing btrfs because it does some Really Neat Things™, but that's it.

I sure wish some of the replies would go into a little more depth on the speed of their file system. I'm aware of benchmarks that do things like create tons of directories and files and then time various interactions which will usually reflect design characteristics of the file system, but I haven't read so many practical reviews of such situations, or other scenarios where one was too slow but a switch to another fs made all the difference. That's just my curiosity; no doubts implied.

xfs when my gear can handle it.

For me the difference between xfs and ext is night and day as soon as the file count and size go up. The time required for simple file creation, directory creation, and ESPECIALLY things like du are orders of magnitude apart.

Here's a quick benchmark to give you an idea:
Machine 1
215k files, 5k directories, 440 GB, du took nearly a minute on ext3, and in my experience ext4 isn't much different.

Machine 2
870k files, 95k directories, 1.2 TB, du took 17 seconds on XFS.

Here's another directory on the same XFS filesystem
280k files, 5.5k directories (pretty similar to the ext3 directory above), 37 TB, du took less than half a second.

The finds also ran faster on the XFS system, filesystem navigation is faster, searching is faster, etc.

4 members found this post helpful.

I use ext4 (has worked well) but did not vote because never looked into what should be preferred(, at least for my needs(stability\speeds (all I care about...))

Maybe the ext4 option should be split into "because it is the default" and "because I choose it over others".

3 members found this post helpful.

I use ext4 as it happens to be the default and has not let me down. I tried BTRFS a while back and had problems -- it may have been the drive it was on not the FS but without the option of scientific testing it did seem to be the FS. Things may be better now, I may try it again.
I have to admit ignorance in not knowing anything about jfs but I must take a look now.
Slightly off topic but, from posters here, I have learned of UDF and am planning on trying it as the file system for my unencrypted portable media.

You don't have to care if you don't want; the default ext4 which is currently used by many distros is quite adequate and reliable.

There are some new features in systems like btrfs which I am personally looking forward to, like better fault tolerance, data deduplication through copy on write, and live backups. I'm conservative about not switching to it until the dust has settled, but I think that will be soon.

Started with Berkeley Fast File (UFS or FFS for you fellow old timers) on BSD 4.2. Transitioned through ext2/ext3 (there for many years). Journalling is what made me move to ext3 from ext2 (lost a bunch of filesystems). I was very happy with that in all production systems (with journalling) until volume sizes really started taking off. I/we then moved into ext4 when it stabilized. Been on ext4 since.

My NAS is ext4 on Raid 5. I can pull the drives, put them into enclosures and move to another linux machine if needed. (yes painful but doable)