Mounting Question

[Dark Star]

Hi
Recently I switched al my partitions to XFS Now I was using openSUSE 11 at that time.. I used the inbuilt partitioner to mount.. It was quick.. There was an option mount by Device Name.. which provide name to HDD like My Comp, Docs etc.. Is it possible to do that just by editing the mount point in fstab ? WIll it change the name too ?

Or any other method ! Like my current mount point is /media/disk Will replaceing disk by Files will change the name too ? Apart from that why Fedora doesn't have support for Commands like fdisk -l , lshw[I know it is not installed] , lspci , and much more?
How do I enable restricted format support in Fedora 9..



Regards

[Faun]

Fedora has fdisk -l command, its just that by default it doesn't include the "bin" directory where these binaries are

Use
su -
to change to root.
the "-" is necessary to include the bin dir where these binaries are

[Rahim]

You have to use :"LABEL=/" in fstab in place of /dev/sdx or UUUID=

[MetalheadGautham]

why XFS ? You could have gone for JFS or EXT3 for best performance...

[kalpik]

EXT3 for performance? Lol dont make jokes early in the morning

[ray|raven]

^Aww cmon kalpik , he started your day with a laugh

[Dark Star]

XFS is the fastest Filesystem atleast what I noticed. Copying files was never so zippy Just one question. None of the OS mount it automatically .. I have open Nautilus under roor and change things under Properties..

btw how can change this. the Fedora fstab looks mess.. Where is my XFS partitions :s .. I have one XFS partitions and one ext3 partitions ! ..

UUID=34a47b9a-7396-4a0d-ace7-7de8ffc19402 /                       ext3    defaults        1 1
tmpfs                   /dev/shm                tmpfs   defaults        0 0
devpts                  /dev/pts                devpts  gid=5,mode=620  0 0
sysfs                   /sys                    sysfs   defaults        0 0
proc                    /proc                   proc    defaults        0 0
UUID=b5731dab-3277-4fc3-bfd9-bdc81e9e8d88 swap                    swap    defaults        0 0

[Faun]

^^those all are not your data partitions except for the / one...lolz
tmpfs,devpts,sysfs and proc are temporary partition, created on each reboot and destroyed on each shutdown.
last one is swap mounted using UUID, first one is / mounted using UUID

Guess you have to create manual entries.

[ray|raven]

Originally Posted by Dark Star

XFS is the fastest Filesystem atleast what I noticed. Copying files was never so zippy Just one question. None of the OS mount it automatically ..

Yeah , Xfs is friggin fast.

And Zenwalk mounts it automatically , I got two Xfs partitions and they get mounted fine.

Only dumb thing with Xfs is that GRUB doesnt boot off it.
But then again we always got LILO.

[Dark Star]

A lame question :S DOes SUSE 11 comes with LILO ? If not .. then it booted with XFS as my filesystem ?

[ray|raven]

^iirc , opensuse lets you choose between lilo and grub.

and afaik , grub cant boot off Xfs.

[Dark Star]

But I didn't selected LILO and it Installed grub by default

[praka123]

what do you actually want? I think you can mount by "mount -t xfs /dev/sdx /mnt " from another distro.
regarding mounting your other distro/window$ partitions ,you can make directories like My_Documents, My_Computer etc and mount with fstab!.

http://fedorafaq.org regarding restricted blah ! .

[kalpik]

Make a separate /boot partition with ext2 on it (100 mb would do).. And i seriously hope you dont loose power while the system is on.. XFS screws up pretty bad! That way, JFS is a VERY good balance betweek speed and stability

[Faun]

^^wats the harm is sticking to ext3 ?
Every filesystem has its disadvantages !

[nitish_mythology]

What advantages do Xfs has over ext3 and vice-versa?

[hellknight]

creating a shell script for that purpose would help i think so.. I've created a script that mounts my ntfs-3g and HFS+ partitions under OpenSUSE 11 without any probs..

1. Make a folder in your home folder with respective names of the partitions.
2. Then,

#!/bin/bash
mount /dev/sda2 /home/dark/name
mount /dev/sda2 /home/dark/name2

etc etc.. like this

then you can change the permissions by chmod u+x script.sh

now open terminal and execute the shell script as root user..

If you wanna add write support then i assume you should try chmod 777 /dev/sdaX

regarding power failures... you can try fsck command to fix your disk

[kalpik]

Originally Posted by nitish_mythology

What advantages do Xfs has over ext3 and vice-versa?

XFS: Faster but not too stable
EXT3: Very stable but not too fast
JFS: Best of both worlds

[hellknight]

Is JFS supported by OpenSUSE 11.. and if yes tell me how can i convert my filesystem into OpenSUSE 11.. currently ext3

[Dark Star]

^^Open yast - > Partitioner -> Select The partition modify and change..

[MetalheadGautham]

Originally Posted by kalpik

Make a separate /boot partition with ext2 on it (100 mb would do).. And i seriously hope you dont loose power while the system is on.. XFS screws up pretty bad! That way, JFS is a VERY good balance betweek speed and stability

JFS has speed and stability, but its still not as safe as ext3 for guys like me who experience too many power cuts and have a kharab UPS which deserves to be blasted by a USP.

Originally Posted by T159

^^wats the harm is sticking to ext3 ?
Every filesystem has its disadvantages !

Yes, so ext3 is the best fallback option if you can't choose an FS.

But a fast FS like XFS or JFS would be sweet on a partition which has several small files and needs to be accessed frequently - AKA /.

Originally Posted by nitish_mythology

What advantages do Xfs has over ext3 and vice-versa?

Well, EXT3 is damn stable, and it provides maximum security for your data. Its what I would recommend for folders with personal and/or important doccuments like /home and partitions for your music library.

XFS is an insanely fast FS thats as secure and safe as ext3. But its the only stable FS with an online defragmenter for linux till now (ext4 will change that) so it provides much better performance. I think its recommended for / partition.

Originally Posted by kalpik

XFS: Faster but not too stable
EXT3: Very stable but not too fast
JFS: Best of both worlds

old is gold eh ?

[Faun]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

J

But a fast FS like XFS or JFS would be sweet on a partition which has several small files and needs to be accessed frequently - AKA /.

crosschcek it Metaaaaaal XFS is efficient for large files and so is JFS (just friggin sink ) Now dont flame me

Probably If you have some blue ray movies or some other large files it wont be of much use.

And did I say how many block size each filesystem reserve is directly proportional to how much space get wasted

a nice read (JFS and ext3 are less cpu intensive albeit a slow one), (XFS and ReiserFS) are more CPU intensive and albeit faster than sh!t

RESULTS
Partition capacity
Initial (after filesystem creation) and residual (after removal of all files) partition capacity was computed as the ratio of number of available blocks by number of blocks on the partition. Ext3 has the worst inital capacity (92.77%), while others FS preserve almost full partition capacity (ReiserFS = 99.83%, JFS = 99.82%, XFS = 99.95%). Interestingly, the residual capacity of Ext3 and ReiserFS was identical to the initial, while JFS and XFS lost about 0.02% of their partition capacity, suggesting that these FS can dynamically grow but do not completely return to their inital state (and size) after file removal.
Conclusion : To use the maximum of your partition capacity, choose ReiserFS, JFS or XFS.
File system creation, mounting and unmounting
The creation of FS on the 20GB test partition took 14.7 secs for Ext3, compared to 2 secs or less for other FS (ReiserFS = 2.2, JFS = 1.3, XFS = 0.7). However, the ReiserFS took 5 to 15 times longer to mount the FS (2.3 secs) when compared to other FS (Ext3 = 0.2, JFS = 0.2, XFS = 0.5), and also 2 times longer to umount the FS (0.4 sec). All FS took comparable amounts of CPU to create FS (between 59% - ReiserFS and 74% - JFS) and to mount FS (between 6 and 9%). However, Ex3 and XFS took about 2 times more CPU to umount (37% and 45%), compared to ReiserFS and JFS (14% and 27%).
Conclusion : For quick FS creation and mounting/unmounting, choose JFS or XFS.
Operations on a large file (ISO image, 700MB)
The initial copy of the large file took longer on Ext3 (38.2 secs) and ReiserFS (41.8) when compared to JFS and XFS (35.1 and 34.8). The recopy on the same disk advantaged the XFS (33.1 secs), when compared to other FS (Ext3 = 37.3, JFS = 39.4, ReiserFS = 43.9). The ISO removal was about 100 times faster on JFS and XFS (0.02 sec for both), compared to 1.5 sec for ReiserFS and 2.5 sec for Ext3! All FS took comparable amounts of CPU to copy (between 46 and 51%) and to recopy ISO (between 38% to 50%). The ReiserFS used 49% of CPU to remove ISO, when other FS used about 10%. There was a clear trend of JFS to use less CPU than any other FS (about 5 to 10% less). The number of minor page faults was quite similar between FS (ranging from 600 - XFS to 661 - ReiserFS).
Conclusion : For quick operations on large files, choose JFS or XFS. If you need to minimize CPU usage, prefer JFS.
Operations on a file tree (7500 files, 900 directories, 1.9GB)
The initial copy of the tree was quicker for Ext3 (158.3 secs) and XFS (166.1) when compared to ReiserFS and JFS (172.1 and 180.1). Similar results were observed during the recopy on the same disk, which advantaged the Ext3 (120 secs) compared to other FS (XFS = 135.2, ReiserFS = 136.9 and JFS = 151). However, the tree removal was about 2 times longer for Ext3 (22 secs) when compared to ReiserFS (8.2 secs), XFS (10.5 secs) and JFS (12.5 secs)! All FS took comparable amounts of CPU to copy (between 27 and 36%) and to recopy the file tree (between 29% - JFS and 45% - ReiserFS). Surprisingly, the ReiserFS and the XFS used significantly more CPU to remove file tree (86% and 65%) when other FS used about 15% (Ext3 and JFS). Again, there was a clear trend of JFS to use less CPU than any other FS. The number of minor page faults was significantly higher for ReiserFS (total = 5843) when compared to other FS (1400 to 1490). This difference appears to come from a higher rate (5 to 20 times) of page faults for ReiserFS in recopy and removal of file tree.
Conclusion : For quick operations on large file tree, choose Ext3 or XFS. Benchmarks from other authors have supported the use of ReiserFS for operations on large number of small files. However, the present results on a tree comprising thousands of files of various size (10KB to 5MB) suggest than Ext3 or XFS may be more appropriate for real-world file server operations. Even if JFS minimize CPU usage, it should be noted that this FS comes with significantly higher latency for large file tree operations.
Directory listing and file search into the previous file tree
The complete (recursive) directory listing of the tree was quicker for ReiserFS (1.4 secs) and XFS (1.8) when compared to Ext3 and JFS (2.5 and 3.1). Similar results were observed during the file search, where ReiserFS (0.8 sec) and XFS (2.8) yielded quicker results compared to Ext3 (4.6 secs) and JFS (5 secs). Ext3 and JFS took comparable amounts of CPU for directory listing (35%) and file search (6%). XFS took more CPU for directory listing (70%) but comparable amount for file search (10%). ReiserFS appears to be the most CPU-intensive FS, with 71% for directory listing and 36% for file search. Again, the number of minor page faults was 3 times higher for ReiserFS (total = 1991) when compared to other FS (704 to 712).
Conclusion : Results suggest that, for these tasks, filesystems can be regrouped as (a) quick and more CPU-intensive (ReiserFS and XFS) or (b) slower but less CPU-intensive (ext3 and JFS). XFS appears as a good compromise, with relatively quick results, moderate usage of CPU and acceptable rate of page faults.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
These results replicate previous observations from Piszcz (2006) about reduced disk capacity of Ext3, longer mount time of ReiserFS and longer FS creation of Ext3. Moreover, like this report, both reviews have observed that JFS is the lowest CPU-usage FS. Finally, this report appeared to be the first to show the high page faults activity of ReiserFS on most usual file operations.
While recognizing the relative merits of each filesystem, only one filesystem can be install for each partition/disk. Based on all testing done for this benchmark essay, XFS appears to be the most appropriate filesystem to install on a file server for home or small-business needs :

• It uses the maximum capacity of your server hard disk(s)
• It is the quickest FS to create, mount and unmount
• It is the quickest FS for operations on large files (>500MB)
• This FS gets a good second place for operations on a large number of small to moderate-size files and directories
• It constitutes a good CPU vs time compromise for large directory listing or file search
• It is not the least CPU demanding FS but its use of system ressources is quite acceptable for older generation hardware

While Piszcz (2006) did not explicitly recommand XFS, he concludes that "Personally, I still choose XFS for filesystem performance and scalability". I can only support this conclusion.

soucre: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388