You are not logged in.
Hi,
I have a 500 GB partition currently with ext3, but the fsck is painfully slow on it. So I decided to change the filesystem.
There are mainly movies, music on it, and also my documents for school. The only crucial thing is performance and that my documents won't go away . I use this partition on local file sharing network (100Mbit), so both read and write performance is important.
Currently I'm deciding between ext4 or btrfs. I'm definitely going to wait for kernel 2.6.31 to be released. I wonder how stable btrfs is going to be until then.
I'm open to any suggestions. I will also be glad if you could recommend file system options/tweaks - in the discussions on phoronix about arch benchmarks there was sthing about data=writeback for ext4.
Thx in advance
Last edited by lman (2009-08-27 08:33:06)
Offline
Offline
reiserfs is mainly useful for a whole lot of small files. I guess ext4 with writeback and noatime + nodiratime would be good.
Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.
Offline
I don't think btrfs is ready for prime time just yet. ext4, xfs or jfs would be better choices.
+1
I use XFS for a partition similar to what you've described. JFS is very good with fsck times because it only journals the meta data.
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
I have XFS on my 500GB hard drive, and the fsck time is pretty quick.
Offline
I'm using ext4 with the tweaks mentioned above on a 1TB drive that holds music, movies, and backups of my game CDs and have no problems with it at all.
Offline
I would keep my school documents on a separate partition with a tried and tested file system
On the fsck times then ext4 will do better than ext3 (never tried other file system so I can't say anything). In my humble opinion ext4 is not yet quite ready for prime time (as far as important things are concerned), just check some of the problems being corrected and you will see why, also some improvements being implemented (or recently implemented) need you to reformat you drive to be able to take advantage of them so waiting is a little longer might not be a bad idea.
The tips about ext4 may very well apply to ext3 too (noatime + nodiratime, writeback is already the default if nothing is overriding that) and a 100Mb connection will hardly stress your hard disk / file system unless you are trying to access many files at once, but in that case what matters most is how the hard disk behaves I believe.
R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K
Offline
It was my understanding that the ext4 on-disk format was frozen with 2.6.28? What has happened since then that requires a reformat?
Offline
On the fsck times then ext4 will do better than ext3 (never tried other file system so I can't say anything). In my humble opinion ext4 is not yet quite ready for prime time (as far as important things are concerned), just check some of the problems being corrected and you will see why, also some improvements being implemented (or recently implemented) need you to reformat you drive to be able to take advantage of them so waiting is a little longer might not be a bad idea.
Can you please give me a link, or tell which improvements I couldn't find anything useful on google just your other post mentioning reformat
The tips about ext4 may very well apply to ext3 too (noatime + nodiratime, writeback is already the default if nothing is overriding that) and a 100Mb connection will hardly stress your hard disk / file system unless you are trying to access many files at once, but in that case what matters most is how the hard disk behaves I believe.
This is kinda out of topic... Well it's the file sharing that stresses my hdd sometimes - 2-3 guys downloading from me each with 4-5 MB/s + I'm downloading sthing 10 MB/s + watching 720/1080p movie + sometimes burning dvd.
Sometimes all this at once , but usually just the uploading part plus one of the others.
Oh and I forgot to mention when dc++ starts hashing...
Last edited by lman (2009-08-27 15:23:18)
Offline
As for links here goes one http://osdir.com/ml/linux-ext4/2009-06/msg00240.html check for the ext4 fixes due in kernel 2.6.31.
I have also seen somewhere (can't remember exactly where) that there was going to be a new allocator implemented for ext4 (but I think that was already done for kernel 2.6.30, I'm not sure if this is where I've seen it, I think not but check here http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Document … s/ext4.txt and search for orlov).
On the disk usage .... you can't possibly be doing all that remotely with a 100Mb/s connection, the peak speed would be 12.5MB/s to each side with a FD link so I guess I misunderstood something, but the problem is still the same, I believe that what will limit you the most is how the hard disk performs when there are many different requests, even one of the latest disks with a good ncq algorithm can't save you from bad performance if you need to read/write many MB of data that are scattered all over the disk (which seems to be your case).
Don't take me wrong but it seems you are asking too much from a setup that isn't the most adequate for what you want to do, the fsck times can indeed be solved with a change in the file system but any concurrent access speed issues need more than that I believe, I don't have experience solving those problems, those are more akin to what you would need to solve in a server environment I guess.
There are other people here with a lot more knowledge about that than me and they may be able to give you good tips.
R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K
Offline
ext4 would be fine, if you use ext3 now then just convert it.
Offline
On the disk usage .... you can't possibly be doing all that remotely with a 100Mb/s connection, the peak speed would be 12.5MB/s to each side with a FD link so I guess I misunderstood something, but the problem is still the same, I believe that what will limit you the most is how the hard disk performs when there are many different requests, even one of the latest disks with a good ncq algorithm can't save you from bad performance if you need to read/write many MB of data that are scattered all over the disk (which seems to be your case).
Thanks for the links.
(Why would it be impossible? Full duplex - 2 guys downloading from me with 5MB/s or let's say 3guys with ~4MB/s (12M), but the peak is usually arund 11.2 due protocol overhead. That much for the upload, and download 10MB/s. Thats ~11 up and ~10 down)
The speed of the hdd is fine, I'm not complaining. I was just explaining why is the performance important to me. Anyway as soon as ssd hdds mature a bit, I'll get one of those .
Offline
It was just my misunderstanding about what you said, I understood 2~3 guys downloading at 4~5MB/s plus watching an hd movie plus burning, all this going through the network, something had to go slowly if all that was going though a 100Mb/s connection
On the disk side of things, you know what I mean, ask too many files at the same time from the disk and things will slowdown to a halt unless files are already cached in the ram
Some file systems may be a bit better due to less overhead or slightly different caching strategies but you will eventually reach the limits imposed by the disk or storage subsystem.
The disk can't read/write while moving the heads around to the right place so if one is trying to read/write many big files at the same time then after all caches are full and no requests can be delayed/reordered things go at snail pace SSDs are great in this, very very low access times but unfortunately for now they are too expensive and too small for mass storage.
R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K
Offline