[lug] Best block size?
Gary.Hodges at noaa.gov
Mon Sep 15 11:53:35 MDT 2003
The Matt wrote:
> 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
> > 20030701185900.jpg
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 3769 Jul 22 14:39
> > 20030701185900.png
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 711 Jul 22 14:39
> > 20030701185900.properties
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 25685 Jul 3 10:33
> > 20030509054400.jpg
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 2559 Jul 3 10:33
> > 20030509054400.png
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 hodges hodges 734 Jul 3 10:33
> > 20030509054400.properties
> > 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.
I was going to format it ext3. I've never really considered using a
filesystem other than ext2 or ext3. No plans to NFS or RAID of any
type. If I use ReiserFS does the whole system have to be that or can I
just make that one disk ReiserFS?
More information about the LUG