Am 25.12.2012 19:26, schrieb Mark Knecht: > On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> > wrote: >> On 12/25/2012 12:07 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Dec 25, 2012 10:44 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markkne...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> <SNIP> >>>>> With the previous local drive I used ext3 and have had no problems. >>>>> I'm just wondering if there's a better choice & why. >>> <SNIP> >>>> >>>> For your usage, I think ext3 is the most suitable. >>>> >>>> Do you have another fs in mind? >>> >>> Really, no. ext3 has been fine. I didn't see any real advantage to >>> ext4 myself. Florian offers the removal argument but I've never >>> removed files from this database. It's just movies so the systems just >>> grows over time. >>> [...] > > I wonder if there's anything to be said for changing block sizes, etc. > away from whatever the defaults are? All of the files are currently > between 350MB & 1.2GB so there's never going to be many more than 2K > files on the drive and I'm assuming the rsync operation if file by > file so fragmentation in the beginning, and probably over time, is > going to be pretty low I think. >
The default of 4k blocks is the largest possible and with big files there is no advantage in using smaller blocks. In fact, it could come back to bite you as it limits file sizes. I guess it also increases fsck times. Another issue I noticed is that it can cause terrible performance if the block size is smaller than the physical block size of the device. mke2fs warns when it detects this. Regards, Florian Philipp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
