| 1 |
Am 25.12.2012 19:26, schrieb Mark Knecht: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 12/25/2012 12:07 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> On Dec 25, 2012 10:44 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> <SNIP> |
| 8 |
>>>>> With the previous local drive I used ext3 and have had no problems. |
| 9 |
>>>>> I'm just wondering if there's a better choice & why. |
| 10 |
>>> <SNIP> |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> For your usage, I think ext3 is the most suitable. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> Do you have another fs in mind? |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Really, no. ext3 has been fine. I didn't see any real advantage to |
| 17 |
>>> ext4 myself. Florian offers the removal argument but I've never |
| 18 |
>>> removed files from this database. It's just movies so the systems just |
| 19 |
>>> grows over time. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
[...] |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I wonder if there's anything to be said for changing block sizes, etc. |
| 24 |
> away from whatever the defaults are? All of the files are currently |
| 25 |
> between 350MB & 1.2GB so there's never going to be many more than 2K |
| 26 |
> files on the drive and I'm assuming the rsync operation if file by |
| 27 |
> file so fragmentation in the beginning, and probably over time, is |
| 28 |
> going to be pretty low I think. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The default of 4k blocks is the largest possible and with big files |
| 32 |
there is no advantage in using smaller blocks. In fact, it could come |
| 33 |
back to bite you as it limits file sizes. I guess it also increases fsck |
| 34 |
times. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Another issue I noticed is that it can cause terrible performance if the |
| 37 |
block size is smaller than the physical block size of the device. mke2fs |
| 38 |
warns when it detects this. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Regards, |
| 41 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives