Currently I have every partition my storage devices set to EXT4 and I was thinking about trying out a new layout considering the drives have different uses. I have a 60 GB SSD which I use for linux (one partition for everything [home,var, root, etc...], it also houses a few small SQL databases), and a 1TB HDD, a 500 GB HDD and a 3 TB HDD. The 1 TB is used solely for movies (a lot of which are HD), the 3 TB has mostly HD TV shows on it and some HD movies that don't fit on the 1 TB drive, the 500 GB is used for random storage and contains anything from word documents and pictures to 500 MB videos.
I have read that BTRFS works pretty well with SSDs but all the performance reviews (couldn't find anything newer than 6 months) say that EXT4 beats it out in almost every aspect.
Does this layout make sense?
SSD used for Arch: BTRFS or NILFS2
1 and 3 TB HDDs: XFS
500 GB HDD: EXT4
Last edited by brando56894 (2012-10-09 05:47:05)
Personaly, the one thing that holds me back from BTRFS is that the fsck tool dose not fix all posible errors yet. Just recently they added support for fixing some errors. EXT4 is fine for an SSD as long as everything is alligned, however ya the journal is not so good, but the whole MLC wearing out has been disproven. Some people have run tests, and found that the flash controlers burn out before the MLC dose.
From what I remember the big deal with XFS for big files was that it didn't waste inodes. However, EXT4's extents solve the same problem. XFS also like stripes the data across multiple disks really well, but for a single disk setup this is of no benifit to you.
Basicaly, I'd sugjest just sticking with ext4 until btrfs has full error correction in the fsck tool. My guess is about another year. I'd say if you want to learn some new cool paritions/file-system stuff. Learn LVM. This is the path I took, and am happy I did. LVM is freaking super cool. Then I'll learn btrfs when it is stable.
Thanks, I did a quick test on transfer rates between ext4 and xfs (copied an 8gb rip of avatar) and it was 20 seconds faster with xfs, the source and destination disks were different disks mind you, so I decided to go with xfs. Another user recommended that I go with nilfs2 on my ssd but everything I've read says its a lot worse than ext4. I'd still love to hear everyone else's opinion on this.
I recently found out that XFS also has trim support. I know it is touted as good for large files, but just throwing things out there. Also, with 3.7 jfs is said to be gaiing trim. Of course, vfat has trim support... but... yeah. Can't say that I have ever tried nilfs2, as I have heard the same thing. Apparently gfs2 also has trim, but I have not tried that one either.
I've heard of JFS, but never used it. I've never heard of gfs2. I'll see if I can find some stuff about both of them.
jfs is pretty good. I used to use it, as it has pretty balanced performance across the board. Also, it is said to have the lowest cpu use of all available linux filesystems, but I cannot confirm this, as I did not really make an effort to check. I think if 3.7 does indeed have trim for jfs I will give it a whirl then. But for now I am pretty happy with ext4
Any other suggestions?
EXT4 is fine. I would only use Btrfs for the 'compress=lzo' mount option.
I can't comment on XFS, but 20 seconds doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I mean, you're not watching the transfer rate anyway. You're probably doing something else while it's transferring (browsing the web, instant messaging, etc). So backing up and formatting 4 TB just because there's a very small difference seems like overkill to me.
I have made a personal commitment not to reply in topics that start with a lowercase letter. Proper grammar and punctuation is a sign of respect, and if you do not show any, you will NOT receive any help (at least not from me).
Thanks for the input. I already formatted the storage drive with XFS while I was waiting for responses just for the hell of it. It does seem to react to things faster, but that may be placebo.