Re: 2TB file system
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:11:32 +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> * Camaleón [Tue, Aug 16 2011, 05:30:07PM]:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:31:53 -0400, Rick Pasotto wrote:
>>
>> > I recently acquired a 2TB SATA HD that I have not yet installed. It
>> > will be used entirely to store media files. Would there be any
>> > problems in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> > Any other considerations?
>>
>> Hum... Reconsider partitioning or even reconsider the file system.
>
> That really depends on what "media files" means. It can be anything,
> from 2MiB music files to 200GiB raw video streams.
>
> For many, many thousands of small files, smaller partitions make sense.
> But for other cases... is it really worth it?
That's why I said he should reconsider the filesystem to use. There are
better options for specific requirements, right?
(sigh...)
Multimedia files + a unique 2 TiB file system tends to mean that the user
is going to store very big files on it and that's the target of XFS, but
who knows what are the OP thoughts. My mind-reader device is a bit
limited...
>> A single volume of 2 TiB is very big (and big file systems are more
>> prone to errors and hard to recover in the event of a corruption...
>> fsck can take... ages? :-P).
>
> You blatantly ignore the real question... why would fsck take ages?
> Because of the file count or because of the overall data size?
I don't mind the why but the fact it takes almost 10 minutes for a volume
of 500 GiB that is only used for backup files. ReiserFS does a better job
when it comes to fsck, is very fast.
>> Also, if you plan to host specifically multimedia files you could
>> consider using XFS instead, I've been told is very good for such
>> purpose ;-)
>
> I have been told many things, and some of them aren't something you
> should believe if you want to stay sane and healthy.
Sorry, but what you believe or not is nothing I really care about, sir.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: