| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shanenin
Guru
Joined: 28 Nov 2003
Posts: 578
Location: Rochester, MN U.S.A
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: resier ext3 question |
 |
|
I am making a file server. This mainly is holding just large files: video, audio. I have used both ext3 and reiserfs in the past and seem to trust both of them as being stable. Which file system will allow me to store more files on it. For example ext3 allocates 1- 5 % for the super user, this seem like lost space. Would i get more files if i used reiserfs?
_________________
http://brighteyedcomputer.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
zAfi
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For large files you should give xfs a try! It behaves far more better than reiserfs. There's a thread about xfs here.
_________________
Gentoo 2008.0/desktop | Kernel: 2.6.27-tuxonice | Arch: amd64 | KDE 3.5.9 | WU Wien |
----------
Share your kernel information @ http://klive.cpushare.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bubbl07
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 237
Location: New York City
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reiserfs definitely allows you to accomodate more files on a volume than ext3 (especially with smaller files). However, for large files (such as media) the performance difference is negligible.
I use ext3 on my server because I am more effectively able to recover from data loss should that occur than I am with Reiserfs (version 3, anyway).
I'm not too familiar with XFS, but I certainly wouldn't discount it. I've been meaning to test it on a partition that doesn't have anything important on it, but I'll get to that eventually... . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neysx
Retired Dev
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 795
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:54 am Post subject: Re: resier ext3 question |
|
|
| shanenin wrote: | | I am making a file server. This mainly is holding just large files: video, audio. I have used both ext3 and reiserfs in the past and seem to trust both of them as being stable. Which file system will allow me to store more files on it. For example ext3 allocates 1- 5 % for the super user, this seem like lost space. Would i get more files if i used reiserfs? |
More files, no. More trouble, probably 
XFS is not a bad idea but you better have a good UPS as power outages and XFS do not get along. It will not allow you to host more files though.
If you don't need journalling, stick to ext2 (/tmp /var/tmp /usr/portage are good examples). BTW, my /usr/portage on ext2 takes up only 250M
Otherwise, ext3 is a very good reliable FS
Last but not least, use tune2fs -m 0 /dev/node to allocate 0% for the root user
Hth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janne Pikkarainen
Veteran
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 1143
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if 0% reserve for root user is a wise move. 1-2% leaves it some room to breathe.
XFS is a very nice one for large files and personally I have not seen any of those horror stories what everybody tells about XFS, even though at one point my laptop was using it. At work I've also been using it at one server without any troubles for more than a year.
But unless your server is very busy, I suspect if you're able to tell any speed difference between the filesystems.
_________________
Yes, I'm the man. Now it's your turn to decide if I meant "Yes, I'm the male." or "Yes, I am the Unix Manual Page.". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neysx
Retired Dev
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 795
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janne Pikkarainen wrote: | | I'm not sure if 0% reserve for root user is a wise move. 1-2% leaves it some room to breathe. |
Depends. root does need a bit of space to breathe and be able to log in and fix whatever is going awfully wrong on the system, but if those files are on a partition of their own, keeping extra space is useless.
Hth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Other Things Gentoo
