Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The JFS File-System Remains In Sad Shape With The Upstream Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The JFS File-System Remains In Sad Shape With The Upstream Linux Kernel

    Phoronix: The JFS File-System Remains In Sad Shape With The Upstream Linux Kernel

    While at the start of 2023 was talk among kernel developers for orphaning the JFS file-system at a time that developers began the processes toward removing the ReiserFS file-system driver, the Journaled File-System so far remains within the mainline kernel and not yet officially orphaned...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    I have said before that I found it performs great on very low end hardware, but maybe ext4 with `data=writeback` would be just as fast and no less safe.

    Comment


    • #3
      Can I just say that XFS(1993) is nearly as old as JFS(1990). Not sure why one would be modern and the other not.

      *source Wikipedia. Not introduction to linux, but original OSes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jeisom View Post
        Can I just say that XFS(1993) is nearly as old as JFS(1990). Not sure why one would be modern and the other not.

        *source Wikipedia. Not introduction to linux, but original OSes.
        JFS2, which is what Linux supports, is from 2000ish AFAIK.

        Comment


        • #5
          Can I just say that XFS(1993) is nearly as old as JFS(1990). Not sure why one would be modern and the other not.
          Simple, it is because XFS is the default filesystem in RedHat Enterprise and gets tons of use and work.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dawn View Post

            JFS2, which is what Linux supports, is from 2000ish AFAIK.
            No. It's way more complicated. Safe to say at this point it's something to be considered much like reiserfs (just without the murderer reputation).

            Linux JFS != AIX JFS != OS/2 JFS (from my perspective)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jeisom View Post
              Can I just say that XFS(1993) is nearly as old as JFS(1990). Not sure why one would be modern and the other not.

              *source Wikipedia. Not introduction to linux, but original OSes.
              What's the difference between XFS and JFS? Well...everything, that's what, XFS is heavily used, XFS is maintained, XFS is gaining new features, XFS is improving, JFS meanwhile is like a stale mcdonald's cheeseburger that has sat in a bag under the seat of someone's car for 24 years, sure it still looks like a mcdonalds burger at initial inspection, but no one rightly wants to sample it to see if it holds up or not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nerdistmonk View Post

                What's the difference between XFS and JFS? Well...everything, that's what, XFS is heavily used, XFS is maintained, XFS is gaining new features, XFS is improving, JFS meanwhile is like a stale mcdonald's cheeseburger that has sat in a bag under the seat of someone's car for 24 years, sure it still looks like a mcdonalds burger at initial inspection, but no one rightly wants to sample it to see if it holds up or not.
                Initially JFS looked attractive as it was basically the same thing as XFS in terms of features (64 bit, journaling, extent-based), but XFS had dreadful file deletion performance. But it quickly turned out that JFS didn't really have any tools to speak of, was not really supported, and when ext4 came along and XFS fixed its main problem, there was basically no reason to think of JFS any more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you are running hardware that is a little long in the tooth like Pentium 3 or 4 hardware JFS makes a great modern FS choice. At least it did when I built those systems back in the day.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It would be nice if after the file systems are removed from the kernel there still was a way to read the data from them, perhaps using FUSE, just for data recovery purposes. Would be easier than having to dig up an old distro, install in a VM etc.

                    As someone who is into retro computing, accessing old data can be quite the chore. And if going back even further (before FAT was the smallest common denominator) even transferring data between systems can be quite complicated. (And the varying physical media formats also come into play, it isn't just the file system that differs, but the physical formatting on floppies etc also varies. But there are tools to deal with this.)

                    Usually for these applications speed doesn't really matter, so something like FUSE would be more than adequate.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X