Re: 2TB USB hard drive for backing up
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:20:05 +0200, Alberto Fuentes wrote:
> > On 21/04/12 19:34, Camaleón wrote:
> >> I'm against big partitions (500 GiB is the limit I have auto-imposed
> >> to my systems) so I would make 4 slices and spread the data over
> >> them. Anyway, I don't think you are going to have any problem to
> >> manage a single partition of 2 TiB, even more if you plain to store
> >> plain data (not a bootable system) there.
> >
> > I have ext4 in one partition of 1.8 Tb or so. It takes about 40 min
> > to chkfs... just something to bear in mind...
>
> Good point :-)
>
> As an aside note, I've been using ReiserFS in all of my linux boxes (in
> both, servers and workstations) for the "/" partition and I never had
> to face the long waits at booting till the fsck ends. I know that
> ReiserFS (v3) is not actively developed (just security patches) and
> performs better for small files but I'm considering in moving ext3 to
> XFS or another mature file system (JFS) because the annoying and
> absurdly long time fsck takes.
Reiserfs has some more drawbacks:
- long mount times on large volumes
- doesn´t distinguish between different filesystems on fsck like
- loopback file with reiserfs on reiserfs
- vm image file with reiserfs on reiserfs
Especially the latter is a no-go for me, cause an fsck would mix up the
several reiserfs filesstems.
XFS might also have long file check times.
fsck times depend more on the number of inodes than on the size of the
filesystem. They also depend on the version of the check tool.
XFS develovers tuned xfs_repair heavily regarding speed and memory usage.
And I seem to recall some optimizations for Ext4 as well, like unitialized
block groups (bguninit or something lile that in tunefs -l).
My Ext4 fsck times on large volumes are quite good. A few minutes usually.
Even on the backup drive which holds at least 1 million inodes in one
logical volume.
> > Its very convenient to have a large sack to toss the stuff, but it
> > has its own set of drawbacks :)
>
> Yes, and I'm against partitioning too much but considering the big
> sizes of the actual hard disks it has become a must, also to minimize
> a filesystem corruption in a partition that can affect the whole data.
I use LVM quite a lot, but I am a bit annoyed by having to vgchange -ay
after inserting and vgchange -an before removal. I like to see a removable
flag for LVs that lessens the locking restrictions that are important in
certain enterprise setups, so that I can have an LVM be scanned
automatically and do not need to run vgchange.
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Reply to: