[lug] Best block size?
thompsma at colorado.edu
Mon Sep 15 11:46:01 MDT 2003
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 11:09, Gary Hodges wrote:
> I've installed a new disk that I will be filling with many thousands of
> files with typical sizes of:
> -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 36064 Jul 22 14:39
> -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 3769 Jul 22 14:39
> -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 711 Jul 22 14:39
> -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 25685 Jul 3 10:33
> -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 2559 Jul 3 10:33
> -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 734 Jul 3 10:33
> That is the approximate high and low range of the .jpg files. While
> this will be the main use for the disk, I will also create temporary
> .iso files to write to CD. What is the ideal block size to use? Why?
Well, I can't answer this very well, but I'm wondering what filesystem
you are thinking of using? I'd probably recommend ReiserFS if you have
many thousands of small files. ReiserFS doesn't really use blocks but
trees. It can often be 10x faster than ext3 on small files. On large
files (e.g., ISOs) it's usually comparable to ext3 (no big advantage).
But, if doesn't work well with NFS or software RAID. So, if that's what
you'll be using, ReiserFS won't work.
"And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony, anyway? I mean,
all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good
and crazy, ooh ooh ooh, the sky's the limit!" -- The Tick
The Matt -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the LUG