reliability, performance, NTFS vs other formats?

[RussellInCincinnati]

What is the most reliable (least error-prone) format for the RT-AC66u USB storage devices in the 1000 gigabyte and smaller range? Put another way, my clients want me to set up the 64gig flash drive as NTFS, any reason not to do so?

Besides reliability, any performance differences between the formats for a 64gig drive? A terabyte drive?

Assume for the latest Merlin .24 release as of February 20 2013. Any further tips about setting up the single-partition USB devices for best reliability also appreciated. For example, are you really ahead of the game to partition and format the USB device with router tools, instead of just using a default NTFS formatted device that was initialized on a Windows 7 or 8 machine?

Am thinking this would be a topic of interest for a good chunk of forum viewers.

 

[RMerlin]

ext2/ext3 remains the most stable and also the fastest filesystem to use with the router, due to the fact it runs Linux. NTFS support is provided through reverse engineering of NTFS since Microsoft's code is closed, so it comes with fewer guarantees of reliability.

 

[huotg01]

ext2/ext3 remains the most stable and also the fastest filesystem to use with the router, due to the fact it runs Linux. NTFS support is provided through reverse engineering of NTFS since Microsoft's code is closed, so it comes with fewer guarantees of reliability.

Is there any inconvenience to use ext2/ext3 and not NTFS (just to know)?
(Between ext2 and ext3, what should guide us ?)

Thanks,
GH

 

[RMerlin]

Is there any inconvenience to use ext2/ext3 and not NTFS (just to know)?
(Between ext2 and ext3, what should guide us ?)

Thanks,
GH

Only that you can't plug it back and access it from a Windows PC.

 

[huotg01]

(Between ext2 and ext3, what should guide us ?)
Thanks,
GH

For those interested: http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2011/05/ext2-ext3-ext4/

Linux File Systems: Ext2 vs Ext3 vs Ext4
by RAMESH NATARAJAN on MAY 16, 2011

ext2, ext3 and ext4 are all filesystems created for Linux. This article explains the High level differences between these filesystems.

Ext2

• Ext2 stands for second extended file system.
• It was introduced in 1993. Developed by Rémy Card.
• This was developed to overcome the limitation of the original ext file system.
• Ext2 does not have journaling feature.
• On flash drives, usb drives, ext2 is recommended, as it doesn’t need to do the over head of journaling.
• Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 2 TB
• Overall ext2 file system size can be from 2 TB to 32 TB

Ext3

• Ext3 stands for third extended file system.
• It was introduced in 2001. Developed by Stephen Tweedie.
• Starting from Linux Kernel 2.4.15 ext3 was available.
• The main benefit of ext3 is that it allows journaling.
• Journaling has a dedicated area in the file system, where all the changes are tracked. When the system crashes, the possibility of file system corruption is less because of journaling.
• Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 2 TB
• Overall ext3 file system size can be from 2 TB to 32 TB
• There are three types of journaling available in ext3 file system.
  • Journal – Metadata and content are saved in the journal.
  • Ordered – Only metadata is saved in the journal. Metadata are journaled only after writing the content to disk. This is the default.
  • Writeback – Only metadata is saved in the journal. Metadata might be journaled either before or after the content is written to the disk.
• You can convert a ext2 file system to ext3 file system directly (without backup/restore).

Ext4

• Ext4 stands for fourth extended file system.
• It was introduced in 2008.
• Starting from Linux Kernel 2.6.19 ext4 was available.
• Supports huge individual file size and overall file system size.
• Maximum individual file size can be from 16 GB to 16 TB
• Overall maximum ext4 file system size is 1 EB (exabyte). 1 EB = 1024 PB (petabyte). 1 PB = 1024 TB (terabyte).
• Directory can contain a maximum of 64,000 subdirectories (as opposed to 32,000 in ext3)
• You can also mount an existing ext3 fs as ext4 fs (without having to upgrade it).
• Several other new features are introduced in ext4: multiblock allocation, delayed allocation, journal checksum. fast fsck, etc. All you need to know is that these new features have improved the performance and reliability of the filesystem when compared to ext3.
• In ext4, you also have the option of turning the journaling feature “off”.

 

[huotg01]

Only that you can't plug it back and access it from a Windows PC.

For those interested, Ext2Fsd is an open source linux ext2/ext3 file system driver for Windows systems (2K/XP/VISTA/WIN7, X86/AMD64).
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2fsd/

I haven't tested it myself, but someone reported a problem with accented characters. Other than that, comments seem really good.

 

[ChrisR]

I use a 'hybrid' solution with backup and media files on ntfs partition and minidlna DB on ext3 partition, which is running stable and good performance (for a week).

Still can plugin usb hdd into my win7 laptop to acces my files, without requiring additional tools...

Another option available

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

what a great idea, ext3 for main data, NTFS for backup

Thanks, ChrisR and Rmerlin, quite nice of you folks, and all the rest of you to answer. And also post convenient links for me to read up on a few details and Win drivers.

My client and I will both be happy with our main fileserver being a 64gigabyte ext3-formatted (by the router I guess?) USB device, backing up nightly to a dirt cheap 1000 gigabyte NTFS-formatted USB hard disk. Something for everyone.

And will go ahead and install Ex2Fsd on one of the Windows machines at the site just for the heck of it, so that we pop the "fileserver" drive into a Windows PC whenever the mood strikes.

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

hmm, will use ext2 for 64gig USB flash drive, not ext3

Come to think of it, with the low-intensity use of the fileserver, and the adequacy of nightly backups, the ext2 filesystem will be a bit easier for the 64gig flash drive (the "main fileserver storage volume") to handle. Probably don't need the extra data integrity and recoverability features of ext3/4.

Will go ahead and write a little checksum script or some other kind of verify-after-copy gadget, that will make sure the nightly backup files are at least nominally identical to the "originals".

Thanks again all.

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

Or, will use ext4 with the journalling feature turned off, which is apparently possible.

 

[RMerlin]

Or, will use ext4 with the journalling feature turned off, which is apparently possible.

ext4 is not supported. The old kernel currently used by Asuswrt only has an experimental version of ext4, and experimental is something I would personally avoid when it comes to data integrity

I might eventually start backporting modern ext4 support from the WL500G project, but this is a low priority at this time.

 

[got_milk]

I might eventually start backporting modern ext4 support from the WL500G project, but this is a low priority at this time.

I doubt that's really necessary. ext3 really should be suitable for anyone needing to attach a disk to their router.

 

[ChrisR]

My client and I will both be happy with our main fileserver being a 64gigabyte ext3-formatted (by the router I guess?) USB device, ...

I used Minitool Partition Wizard Home Edition on my win7 laptop to format, partition and label to ntfs and ext3 hdd

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

Could you guys possibly be any more thorough in your replies?

This is so great, thanks much RMerlin and ChrisR etc for your super thorough followup. All points well taken, will have fun playing with Minitool Partition Wizard Home Edition and setting up an ext2 or ext3 partition for the RT-AC66u router's USB flash drive.

RMerlin, of course please do not think that I was wishing for ext4 support that you would peel off of the WL500G work.

My goodness, am unaccustomed to such a nice forum. Thanks.

 

[windozer]

Hi Merlin, would you consider adding support for exFAT? Best regards.
[Phoronix] An Open-Source exFAT Implementation Reaches v1.0

 

[RMerlin]

Hi Merlin, would you consider adding support for exFAT? Best regards.
[Phoronix] An Open-Source exFAT Implementation Reaches v1.0

No plan to.

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

ex-fat file system looks legally problematic without licensing

From Wikipedia: "This renders the implementation, distribution, and use of exFAT as a part of free or open-source operating systems or of commercial software, for which the vendors could not obtain a license from Microsoft, not only technically difficult, but legally impossible in countries that recognize United States software patents."

Speaking as an ordinary joe consultant with pretty ordinary small business clients...ext2, ext3, NTFS, and FAT32 support sure feels like plenty of file system support for a $190 dollar router (heck that even appears to support USB storage devices through a hub). That's a pretty wide set of storage options for a WiFi access point that really isn't designed to compete with a $190 dollar NAS box, let alone a dedicated high-powered file server.