Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

sdellysse · 2010-01-25 20:51:36

Finally got around to moving my simple NAS box from an old debian install to arch. I'm using LVM on my storage raid, and I need help understanding which fs would work best for each situation.

I have one section set aside for music files. (3mb to 30mb)
I have one section set aside for video files. (700mb to 1.2gb)
And then the rest are for small text files, pictures and the like.

Which would be the best fs's for the above specs?

Carlwill · 2010-01-26 01:09:50

I think Ext4 would be fine for all those. It's fast and supports journaling so unless anyone can think of a reason it wont work...

brenix · 2010-01-26 04:44:18

+1 for ext4. To me it seems to work better all around (small/big files etc..)

Troolari · 2010-01-26 23:46:09

ReiserFS is truly a killer filesystem.

PirateJonno · 2010-01-27 08:50:39

Troolari wrote:

ReiserFS is truly a killer filesystem.

hahaha oh dear...

Cyrusm · 2010-01-27 14:13:11

Troolari wrote:

ReiserFS is truly a killer filesystem.

lol, I just got the joke +1 for reiser imho.

fumbles · 2010-01-30 12:06:13

ext4 and LVM works with online resizing without any hassles, plus being faster than most makes it a good choice.

manuC · 2010-01-30 18:20:53

EXT3 is faster in the current kernel. If you're never going to reboot the NAS long fsck times aren't a problem, so I'd go with that, personally. But any one of the commonly used ones is good. Even NTFS isn't a bad choice (it's the most portable one).

I'd keep it all in one partition, personally. Especially with small partitions like the one you're using you're going to run into problems fitting files where you intended them to go. It's frustrating to have space available, but just not on the partition you need it.

I know conventional unix wisdom says you should keep separate partitions so you can saveguard against hardware failure, but nowadays you're better off using the cloud for backups.

Last edited by manuC (2010-01-30 18:21:27)

kolbycrouch · 2010-01-31 03:43:13

You seem to be using very small files, I would personally recommend reiser, although if you want compatibility then Fat32 is probably the most, most all modern OS's ( all that I have used ) have pretty stable support for fat.

all in all though, you don't seem to be doing anything with a big load, so the filesystem you use wont really matter, just go with whatever.

milomouse · 2010-01-31 19:11:58

I can say that I use reiserfs (v3) on all my partitions and have never seen a problem as compared when I used ext4 on them before. The fsck's are just as fast too, in my experience. I just changed the hash to Tea instead of r5 because it's better for data integrity if you're planning on using it for important files. That's just my opinion though. Also, I've never had a problem with large files either. reiserfs is not just for small files either (although that's where it really shines) I have a few movies I ripped from my collection at 4GB a piece. So, +1 for reiserfs here too.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-01-25 20:51:36

Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#2 2010-01-26 01:09:50

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#3 2010-01-26 04:44:18

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#4 2010-01-26 23:46:09

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#5 2010-01-27 08:50:39

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#6 2010-01-27 14:13:11

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#7 2010-01-30 12:06:13

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#8 2010-01-30 18:20:53

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#9 2010-01-31 03:43:13

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

#10 2010-01-31 19:11:58

Re: Filesystem gurus needed. Which fs is best for which task?

Board footer