| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/25/2012 12:07 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> On Dec 25, 2012 10:44 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> <SNIP> |
| 7 |
>>>> With the previous local drive I used ext3 and have had no problems. |
| 8 |
>>>> I'm just wondering if there's a better choice & why. |
| 9 |
>> <SNIP> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> For your usage, I think ext3 is the most suitable. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Do you have another fs in mind? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Really, no. ext3 has been fine. I didn't see any real advantage to |
| 16 |
>> ext4 myself. Florian offers the removal argument but I've never |
| 17 |
>> removed files from this database. It's just movies so the systems just |
| 18 |
>> grows over time. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I suppose I wondered whether some other filesystem might get through |
| 21 |
>> an fsck _much_ faster. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> There's really no reason to use ext3 over ext4. Ext4 does have a faster |
| 25 |
> fsck. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If the graph here |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Improving_fsck_Speeds_in_Ext4 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
represents real speed improvement then it's likely worth it to me. The |
| 34 |
drive is doubling in size but initially the data isn't. (500GB getting |
| 35 |
rsync'ed to 1TB) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
As I have no immediate needs for the older drive I will give ext4 a |
| 38 |
try and just hang on to the old drive&data for a few months and see |
| 39 |
how it goes. I'd do that anyway in case the new drive has an infant |
| 40 |
mortality issue show up, but really the backup is the 1TB on the TV |
| 41 |
which is stable and in use for over a year with no smartctl issues. |
| 42 |
(yet) However that drive is FAT formatted so I don't really want to |
| 43 |
depend on it for anything long term. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I wonder if there's anything to be said for changing block sizes, etc. |
| 46 |
away from whatever the defaults are? All of the files are currently |
| 47 |
between 350MB & 1.2GB so there's never going to be many more than 2K |
| 48 |
files on the drive and I'm assuming the rsync operation if file by |
| 49 |
file so fragmentation in the beginning, and probably over time, is |
| 50 |
going to be pretty low I think. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Thanks for the info. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Cheers, |
| 55 |
Mark |
Archives