Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

chane · 2006-08-02 22:45:17

I'm about to build a large file server (3.5 TB):

- 8 * 500GB Sata drives
- Raid 5 (hardware)

The server will be primarly storing cd/dvd images and large graphics files.

I'm just starting my research on different file system. Any recommendations?

Thanks,
Chris....

test1000 · 2006-08-02 23:29:26

XFS?

user · 2006-08-03 01:09:12

about raid thing, i heard ZFS

ralvez · 2006-08-03 02:41:21

I read awhile back that the most efficient file systems are ext3 and reiserfs.

I've used the latest for several years now and have never had a problem but if my memory serves me well it is less efficient (in terms of speed) when dealing with large files. On the other hand it is far better that ext3 when dealing with small files.

I think that if you are going to deal with such large HDD it may be better served with ext3.

Hope this helps.

brazzmonkey · 2006-08-03 07:03:14

for large files, i'd recommend xfs. that's what it's made for. xfs filesystems mount quickly, whereas reiserfs fs are slow to mount.

JGC · 2006-08-03 08:01:53

For such big drives, XFS is the only choice. Ext3 can handle quite big drives, but when terabytes are involved, XFS is a better choice.
Reiserfs is quite nice when it comes to space savings due to the tail packing, but who needs this on a 3.5TB volume? Also, reiserfs does some things on mount to initialize some kind of cache, which takes ages on these large volumes.

If you're using XFS, make sure you tune the creation of the filesystem. Things like journal size and the number of allocation groups are important to keep performance good.

ralvez · 2006-08-03 14:36:47

I decided to research the question a bit more and found this: http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/Fi … HOWTO.html
As suggested by some other members XFS is the way to go. Funny enough, EXT3 is not the second best for large volumes, as I was lead to believe from other readings, but Reiserfs.

chane · 2006-08-03 15:47:53

Thanks everyone for your help!

If you're using XFS, make sure you tune the creation of the filesystem. Things like journal size and the number of allocation groups are important to keep performance good.

I'm going to probably use XFS based on what I read here. I'm about to learn a lot about XFS, any particular link you would recommend (beyond the one above - which looks like a good read) to figure out how to "tune" XFS.

Thanks again,
Chris....

phrakture · 2006-08-03 15:58:21

With that much space you could mirror the arch packages with no problem!!! *wink wink, nudge nudge*

ralvez · 2006-08-03 16:19:11

The article "Filesystem performance tweaking with XFS on Linux" may be a good starting point. It's here:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id … id=1479435

p.s.: There are also thes two links that may help:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/l … l-fs9.html

Michel · 2006-08-09 12:05:18

Hello,

both xfs and jfs are good. I would suggest jfs. It also works very well. It has been a while that I looked at the benchmark(s).
Anyway, I use both and both are nice. (Originally) Jfs comes from IBM and xfs from SGI.

Some points:
* Use xfs as the root-filesystem, if you don't install the jfs_utils. I have the impression that xfs doesn't need to rerun the logs as much as jfs (when something goes wronf: sudden crash, ...) at startup. Or maybe xfs doesn't really need the associated tool? Don't understand me wrongly, jfs is safe as far as I know.
* You can't shrink the jfs and xfs-filesystems. This is something I would like to see added to them. What I do now, is use lvm2 and only allocate what I need. Enlarging a partition is very easy. There is a good tutorial about lvm(2) on tldp.org.

Greetings,

Michel

chane · 2006-08-28 19:51:37

I was about to test a couple of different file systems and ran into a problem partitioning the drive.

To recap I am using 8 * 500GB WD Sata drives on a 3ware 9500 Card. I have created one large Raid 5 array (in the 9500 BIOS program).

The 3ware instructions tell me to use parted to partition the drive (since it is large than 2TB). However, parted does not support XFS...so I'm looking for another way to partition the drive.

I used fdisk. When I start fdisk /dev/sda, it informs me that I have to set the cylinders before I can perform any actions. I set the cylinders to the maximum fdisk will allow (some very large number). I then created a partition using 1 as the start cylinder and 3500GB as the stop (which is the size of my RAID array).

I'm a little concered about the cylinder size I put in. I know it is wrong, since I don't have any idea what the cylinder size should be. Not sure cylinder size really makes sense across multiple disks though.

Also, every time I start fdisk (even to just verify the partition table), it asks me to input the cylinder size.

Any help/insights into how I can correctly partition the raid array would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Chris....

Romashka · 2006-08-29 07:19:41

We're going to build 1.5TB RAID5 (6x300GB) array. Of course, there will be XFS. JFS is another option.

iphitus · 2006-08-29 07:23:23

ZFS and run Solaris. Someone I know has a similar amount of space and says that ZFS is the greatest thing going round. From what he's shown me, i don't disagree.

James

Michel · 2006-08-29 07:36:02

Hello,

you could try cfdisk. It is easier than fdisk normally.

Greetings,

Michel

chane · 2006-08-29 14:20:24

iphitus wrote:

ZFS and run Solaris. Someone I know has a similar amount of space and says that ZFS is the greatest thing going round. From what he's shown me, i don't disagree.
James

Thanks James. I'm trying to stay with on OS for my production servers tough. I have been thinking about dividing it into 3 partitions and joining them with LVM2.

Michel wrote:

Hello,
you could try cfdisk. It is easier than fdisk normally.
Greetings,
Michel

Thanks for the suggestion. However, when I try cfdisk /dev/sda I get the following error:

FATAL ERROR: Cannot get disk size

I think it is having the same problem and is not able to determine the size/number of cylinders. Guess I'm off to google some more....

Thanks,
Chris....

Arch Linux

#1 2006-08-02 22:45:17

Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#2 2006-08-02 23:29:26

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#3 2006-08-03 01:09:12

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#4 2006-08-03 02:41:21

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#5 2006-08-03 07:03:14

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#6 2006-08-03 08:01:53

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#7 2006-08-03 14:36:47

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#8 2006-08-03 15:47:53

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#9 2006-08-03 15:58:21

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#10 2006-08-03 16:19:11

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#11 2006-08-09 12:05:18

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#12 2006-08-28 19:51:37

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#13 2006-08-29 07:19:41

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#14 2006-08-29 07:23:23

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#15 2006-08-29 07:36:02

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

#16 2006-08-29 14:20:24

Re: Recommended File System - 3.5 TB

Board footer