{OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

{OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

pat-9
Hi,

Installing gentoo on new laptop and it has 2TB disk. I want to use 1.8TB
for data where will be big files and also huge amount of small files,
thus I want to ask which FS is best for this. Until now I've used
reiserfs on cca 0.5TB partition, but I don't know if it's also good
choice for that big partition.

I've thought about zfs, but I don't need snapshots and such stuff mostly
scaling is requirement.

Thanks

Pat

----------------------------------------
Freehosting PIPNI - http://www.pipni.cz/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Christos Kotsis
If the big data are used often,and I/O performance is desirable, then I would go for two partitions.
One would be either ext3 or ext4, with huge block size, while the second could be one of two with small block size(minimum 1024).


On 5 Oct 2017 10:46 pm, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Installing gentoo on new laptop and it has 2TB disk. I want to use 1.8TB for data where will be big files and also huge amount of small files, thus I want to ask which FS is best for this. Until now I've used reiserfs on cca 0.5TB partition, but I don't know if it's also good choice for that big partition.

I've thought about zfs, but I don't need snapshots and such stuff mostly scaling is requirement.

Thanks

Pat

----------------------------------------
Freehosting PIPNI - http://www.pipni.cz/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Christos Kotsis
I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files. 

On 5 Oct 2017 11:32 pm, "christos kotsis" <[hidden email]> wrote:
If the big data are used often,and I/O performance is desirable, then I would go for two partitions.
One would be either ext3 or ext4, with huge block size, while the second could be one of two with small block size(minimum 1024).


On 5 Oct 2017 10:46 pm, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

Installing gentoo on new laptop and it has 2TB disk. I want to use 1.8TB for data where will be big files and also huge amount of small files, thus I want to ask which FS is best for this. Until now I've used reiserfs on cca 0.5TB partition, but I don't know if it's also good choice for that big partition.

I've thought about zfs, but I don't need snapshots and such stuff mostly scaling is requirement.

Thanks

Pat

----------------------------------------
Freehosting PIPNI - http://www.pipni.cz/




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Philip Webb-2
171005 christos kotsis wrote:
> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.

I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except  /boot
& have never had any problems with my files or drives.
I have many small files + a few big PDFs -- perhaps  c 20 MB ea  --
& the big ones simply stay where I put them, so no changes to handle.

--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Philip Webb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 171005 christos kotsis wrote:
>> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
>> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.
>
> I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except  /boot
> & have never had any problems with my files or drives.
> I have many small files + a few big PDFs -- perhaps  c 20 MB ea  --
> & the big ones simply stay where I put them, so no changes to handle.
>

Unless your needs are fairly specialized (in which case you probably
wouldn't be looking for advice on this list), I'd probably stick with
the more mainstream filesystems.

I doubt reiserfs will eat your data, but it has been generally falling
out of use.

IMO if your goal isn't to experiment with alternate filesystems, there
are really only a couple of mainstream choices out there for a
general-purpose workstation filesystem:

1.  Ext4:  This should just be your default if you don't want to care
about your filesystem.  It is ubiquitous for a reason.  It won't eat
your data, and everybody knows what to expect from it.  If your
filesystem is fairly small and being used for a root, or otherwise has
a lot of small files, then make sure to override the inode defaults.
Other than that it just works.

2.  Xfs: If you absolutely have to mess with a filesystem (especially
for multimedia) this isn't a bad alternative.  You won't be able to
shrink it, but for the most part it behaves a lot like ext4.

Zfs is starting to cross over into experimental territory, IMO, though
it generally is fairly stable.  I care about data integrity, so it is
what I tend to run (well, aside from one btrfs filesystem I haven't
switched over).  I had a SATA port misbehave and spread silent
corruption all over a disk, and zfs got me through it without anything
but some warning alerts/etc and a need to rebuild after I moved the
drive to another controller (and marked a big X over the port).  If I
were using mdadm I'd have had to rebuild from backups at a cost of
hours of downtime (a fairly large array), and might have lost
recently-written data entirely as might have been in use for longer
before detecting the error, leaving me a dilemma of figuring out which
backup versions were good, with the answer being something older.
Even if I didn't have redundancy zfs (or btrfs) would have complained
loudly about the issue.  I do use snapshots because they're cheap, but
rolling back is pretty rare.

Unless you have a very specialized need I wouldn't go messing with
block sizes or anything like that in any of these cases.

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Grant Edwards-6
On 2017-10-06, Rich Freeman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2.  Xfs: If you absolutely have to mess with a filesystem (especially
> for multimedia) this isn't a bad alternative.  You won't be able to
> shrink it, but for the most part it behaves a lot like ext4.

This was probably 10ish years ago, but I switched my multimedia
filesystems from ext* to xfs because deleting a large file (several
GB) on an ext filesystem would basically lock up my machine for tens
of seconds.  The seemed to be a known problem in the MythTv world and
the standard solution was to use xfs instead.  Sure enough, deleting
large files on xfs didn't cause problems.

* It was probably ext3 back then, so it's possible none of this
  applies to ext4.

--
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! It's OKAY -- I'm an
                                  at               INTELLECTUAL, too.
                              gmail.com            


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Rich Freeman
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Grant Edwards
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2017-10-06, Rich Freeman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2.  Xfs: If you absolutely have to mess with a filesystem (especially
>> for multimedia) this isn't a bad alternative.  You won't be able to
>> shrink it, but for the most part it behaves a lot like ext4.
>
> This was probably 10ish years ago, but I switched my multimedia
> filesystems from ext* to xfs because deleting a large file (several
> GB) on an ext filesystem would basically lock up my machine for tens
> of seconds.  The seemed to be a known problem in the MythTv world and
> the standard solution was to use xfs instead.  Sure enough, deleting
> large files on xfs didn't cause problems.
>
> * It was probably ext3 back then, so it's possible none of this
>   applies to ext4.
>

Oh, that definitely impacts ext4 in the same way, but it doesn't
change my recommendation.  In normal use it really doesn't have that
much impact.

The poster wasn't asking for a recommendation for mythtv storage
specifically.  I believe that back when I was running mythtv I still
used ext4 because the deletion issue wasn't actually that large in
impact in practice, but I did modify the sources to increase the
buffer sizes (otherwise I'd sometimes lose frames whether I was
deleting stuff or otherwise, as linux io queuing still has a lot of
room to improve even with ionice).

If you do have a situation where you do a lot of large file deletions
then I'd definitely consider that a reason to steer away from ext4
specifically.  Xfs does handle this fine.  I'm not sure about zfs or
the other options - I suspect some will work and some won't.  Again,
zfs isn't really something I'd just use "by default."

Really to get more specific you'd need to know exactly how the system
will be used, and how willing to deal with issues the admin is.  There
is a lot to be said for "just works."

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

J. Roeleveld
In reply to this post by Christos Kotsis
On 5 October 2017 22:45:50 GMT+02:00, christos kotsis <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance over ext3, 4
>when
>dealing with small files.
>
>On 5 Oct 2017 11:32 pm, "christos kotsis" <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>If the big data are used often,and I/O performance is desirable, then I
>would go for two partitions.
>One would be either ext3 or ext4, with huge block size, while the
>second
>could be one of two with small block size(minimum 1024).
>
>
>On 5 Oct 2017 10:46 pm, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>Installing gentoo on new laptop and it has 2TB disk. I want to use
>1.8TB
>for data where will be big files and also huge amount of small files,
>thus
>I want to ask which FS is best for this. Until now I've used reiserfs
>on
>cca 0.5TB partition, but I don't know if it's also good choice for that
>big
>partition.
>
>I've thought about zfs, but I don't need snapshots and such stuff
>mostly
>scaling is requirement.
>
>Thanks
>
>Pat
>
>----------------------------------------
>Freehosting PIPNI - http://www.pipni.cz/

I had a large partition with reiserfs.
Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.

Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained a huge (millions) amount of files, but having an fsck become impossible with 16GB memory available was rather annoying.

--
Joost
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

pat-9
On 2017-10-06 20:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:

> On 5 October 2017 22:45:50 GMT+02:00, christos kotsis
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance over ext3, 4
>> when
>> dealing with small files.
>>
>> On 5 Oct 2017 11:32 pm, "christos kotsis" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If the big data are used often,and I/O performance is desirable, then
>> I
>> would go for two partitions.
>> One would be either ext3 or ext4, with huge block size, while the
>> second
>> could be one of two with small block size(minimum 1024).
>>
>>
>> On 5 Oct 2017 10:46 pm, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Installing gentoo on new laptop and it has 2TB disk. I want to use
>> 1.8TB
>> for data where will be big files and also huge amount of small files,
>> thus
>> I want to ask which FS is best for this. Until now I've used reiserfs
>> on
>> cca 0.5TB partition, but I don't know if it's also good choice for
>> that
>> big
>> partition.
>>
>> I've thought about zfs, but I don't need snapshots and such stuff
>> mostly
>> scaling is requirement.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Freehosting PIPNI - http://www.pipni.cz/
>
> I had a large partition with reiserfs.
> Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
>
> Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained a
> huge (millions) amount of files, but having an fsck become impossible
> with 16GB memory available was rather annoying.
>
> --
> Joost

Hi,

Thanks to all, it will be dev env, so sources and big DB. I'll try
reiserfs first (I have long time experiences with this one and have 32GB
RAM :-D) and if this fails then xfs.

Thanks again.

Pat



----------------------------------------
Freehosting PIPNI - http://www.pipni.cz/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Mick-10
In reply to this post by J. Roeleveld
On Friday, 6 October 2017 19:12:00 BST J. Roeleveld wrote:

> I had a large partition with reiserfs.
> Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
>
> Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained a huge
> (millions) amount of files, but having an fsck become impossible with 16GB
> memory available was rather annoying.
>
> --
> Joost

It should also be noted that reiserfs may be getting some bitrot over the
years.  I haven't used it for a while now, but when I converted an old PC from
reiserfs to ext4 it acquired a new lease of life in terms of performance.  For
every day personal use I tend to prefer it, although I also use btrfs on a
trial basis.
--
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Dale-46
Mick wrote:

> On Friday, 6 October 2017 19:12:00 BST J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
>> I had a large partition with reiserfs.
>> Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
>>
>> Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained a huge
>> (millions) amount of files, but having an fsck become impossible with 16GB
>> memory available was rather annoying.
>>
>> --
>> Joost
> It should also be noted that reiserfs may be getting some bitrot over the
> years.  I haven't used it for a while now, but when I converted an old PC from
> reiserfs to ext4 it acquired a new lease of life in terms of performance.  For
> every day personal use I tend to prefer it, although I also use btrfs on a
> trial basis.


Same here.  When I built my current rig several years ago, I switched to
ext4 from reiserfs myself.  At the time, there was very little
development and its future was uncertain since the guy that came up with
it was shall we say, no longer available.  I haven't looked into it but
is it even maintained like it should be or just sitting out there with
the occasional patch up by whoever has a few minutes? 

If I were building a new rig today, I don't think I'd even consider
reiserfs. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Matthias Hanft
In reply to this post by Grant Edwards-6
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> This was probably 10ish years ago, but I switched my multimedia
> filesystems from ext* to xfs because deleting a large file (several
> GB) on an ext filesystem would basically lock up my machine for tens
> of seconds.  The seemed to be a known problem in the MythTv world and
> the standard solution was to use xfs instead.  Sure enough, deleting
> large files on xfs didn't cause problems.

Same here, with a *really* big xfs filesystem:

Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda4        17T   17T   65G 100% /

'round 30,000 video files, no problems at all!

-Matt


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by Philip Webb-2
On 10/6/2017, 8:53:27 AM, Philip Webb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 171005 christos kotsis wrote:
>> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
>> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.

> I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except  /boot
> & have never had any problems with my files or drives.
> I have many small files + a few big PDFs -- perhaps  c 20 MB ea  --
> & the big ones simply stay where I put them, so no changes to handle.

I used ReiserFS for many - 8+ - years on our old mail server, selected
for its performance with large numbers of small (maildir) files, and
never had a problem.

But during the last rebuild when virtualizing everything, sometime
around 2012, I switched to XFS, and believe I saw a performance gain,
and no more long fsck's during the rare reboots... and again, no problems.

Personally, I can't wait until btrfs is fully ready/stable, and have
been considering FreeBSD (or FreeNAS) just for ZFS, for the reliability
factor, but have wondered about performance for mail servers.

Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs
or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server?

Although, I will also be switching to dovecot's mdbox format when I set
up my next server, so the issue of lots of small files won't be nearly
as big.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by J. Roeleveld
On 10/6/2017, 2:12:00 PM, J. Roeleveld <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I had a large partition with reiserfs.
> Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
>
> Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained
> a huge (millions) amount of files, > but having an fsck become
> impossible with 16GB memory available was rather annoying.

Ah, yes, I had a similar problem occasionally when a user would decide
to delete (or move to a different folder) a bunch (as many as tens of
thousands) of messages at once... Thunderbird would go non responsive,
and the server was brought to its knees. I'd have to kill their server
processes, and then the user would end up with a bunch of duplicate
messages in their maildirs.

Very annoying.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Neil Bothwick
In reply to this post by tanstaafl-2
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 05:18:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs
> or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server?

I tried btrfs on a mail server and it was unbearably slow. Disabling
copy-on-write made a big difference, but it still went a lot faster when
I switched to ext4.

I haven't used XFS in years, maybe it's time to revisit it.


--
Neil Bothwick

Walk softly and carry a fully charged phazer.

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Rich Freeman
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Neil Bothwick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 05:18:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs
>> or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server?
>
> I tried btrfs on a mail server and it was unbearably slow. Disabling
> copy-on-write made a big difference, but it still went a lot faster when
> I switched to ext4.
>
> I haven't used XFS in years, maybe it's time to revisit it.
>

I haven't used xfs in a while, but here is my sense of things, for a
basic configuration (filesystem running on one drive or a mirrored
pair):

xfs > ext4 > zfs >>> btrfs

At least, that is in terms of most conventional measures of
performance (reading and writing files on a typical filesystem).  If
you want to measure performance in terms of how long your system is
down after a controller error then both zfs and btrfs will have an
advantage.  I mention it because I think that integrity shouldn't take
a back seat to performance 99% of the time.  It has performance
benefits of its own, but you only see them every couple of years when
something fails.

btrfs isn't horrible, but it basically hasn't been optimized at all.
The developers are mainly focused on getting it to not destroy your
data, with mixed success.  An obvious example of this is that if you
read a file from a pair of mirrors, the filesystem decides which drive
in the pair to use based on whether the PID doing the read is even or
odd.

Fundamentally I haven't seen any arguments as to why btrfs should be
any worse than zfs.  It just hasn't been implemented completely.  But,
if you want a filesystem today and not in 10 years you need to take
that into account.

Now, ZFS has a bunch of tricks available to improve things like SSD
read caches and write logs.  But, you could argue that other
filesystems support separate journal devices and there is bcache so I
think if you want to look at those features you need to compare apples
to apples.  ZFS certainly integrates it all nicely, but then it has
other "features" like not being able to remove a drive from a storage
pool, or revert to a snapshot without deleting all the subsequent
snapshots.

In general though I think zfs will always suffer a bit in performance
because it is copy-on-write.  If you want to change 1 block in the
middle of a file, ext4 and xfs can just write over that 1 block, while
zfs and btrfs are going to write that block someplace else and do a
metadata dance to map it over the original block.  I just don't see
how that will ever be faster.  Of course, if you have a hardware
failure in the middle of an operation zfs and btrfs basically
guarantee that the writes behave as if they were atomic, while you
only get that benefit with ext4/xfs if you do full journaling with a
significant performance hit, and if you're using mdadm underneath then
you lose that guarantee.  Both zfs and btrfs avoid the raid write hole
(though to be fair you don't want to go anywhere near parity raid on
btrfs anytime soon).

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for performance-above-all.
For an ephemeral worker node you already have 47 backups running and
if the node fails you restart it, so if it needs to write some data to
disk performance is probably the only concern.  Ditto for any data
that has no long-term value/etc.  However, for most general-purpose
filesystems I think integrity should be the #1 concern, because you
won't notice that 20us access time difference but you probably will
notice hour spent restoring from backups, assuming you even have
backups.

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

J. Roeleveld
In reply to this post by tanstaafl-2
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 11:18:33 AM CEST Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 10/6/2017, 8:53:27 AM, Philip Webb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 171005 christos kotsis wrote:
> >> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
> >> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.
> >
> > I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except  /boot
> > & have never had any problems with my files or drives.
> > I have many small files + a few big PDFs -- perhaps  c 20 MB ea  --
> > & the big ones simply stay where I put them, so no changes to handle.
>
> I used ReiserFS for many - 8+ - years on our old mail server, selected
> for its performance with large numbers of small (maildir) files, and
> never had a problem.

Same here, apart from that one partition where the fsck never worked.

> But during the last rebuild when virtualizing everything, sometime
> around 2012, I switched to XFS, and believe I saw a performance gain,
> and no more long fsck's during the rare reboots... and again, no problems.

My last rebuild was earlier this year, my mail had already been migrated to
ext4 without issues. (Did not notice any performance issues)

> Personally, I can't wait until btrfs is fully ready/stable, and have
> been considering FreeBSD (or FreeNAS) just for ZFS, for the reliability
> factor, but have wondered about performance for mail servers.
>
> Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs
> or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server?

My mailserver (Cyrus) uses ext4 for the mailboxes.
This is on a partition which is accessed via iSCSI.
Which is a zvol on a ZFS pool.

Eg: disks <-> ZFS <-> zvol <-> iSCSI <-> ext4

I am not noticing any significant performance issues, the ones I am can be
resolved by adding a dedicated SLOG en L2ARC, but this will only help the
systems hanging in the rack as those are connected with a 20Gbe link. Rest of
the systems won't get more than 1Gbe.

I have several large mailboxes:
- postgresql-hackers = 195,000 items
- gentoo-user = 240,000 items
- Xen-devel = 366,000 items

The others are below 100,000.
I use these as archives and regularly search through these before reverting to
Google or asking on the relevant mailing lists.

> Although, I will also be switching to dovecot's mdbox format when I set
> up my next server, so the issue of lots of small files won't be nearly
> as big.

mdbox? Is this a single file per mail folder?
The main reason I switched to maildir several decades ago was precisely the
issues (by design) mbox has.
A single corrupted email WILL kill the entire folder.

--
Joost

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

J. Roeleveld
In reply to this post by tanstaafl-2
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 11:28:08 AM CEST Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 10/6/2017, 2:12:00 PM, J. Roeleveld <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I had a large partition with reiserfs.
> > Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
> >
> > Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained
> > a huge (millions) amount of files, > but having an fsck become
> > impossible with 16GB memory available was rather annoying.
>
> Ah, yes, I had a similar problem occasionally when a user would decide
> to delete (or move to a different folder) a bunch (as many as tens of
> thousands) of messages at once... Thunderbird would go non responsive,
> and the server was brought to its knees. I'd have to kill their server
> processes, and then the user would end up with a bunch of duplicate
> messages in their maildirs.
>
> Very annoying.

Actually, I used to do this a lot using a webmail client (when I was still
able to run squirrelmail without having to change back to an old PHP version)
and never actually had any issues with this.
Neither with reiserfs or ext4.

I would put that down to either hardware or issues with the chosen IMAP-
server. For reference: I have been using Cyrus for a very long time.

--
Joost

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Neil Bothwick
In reply to this post by Rich Freeman
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 07:06:24 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:

> btrfs isn't horrible, but it basically hasn't been optimized at all.
> The developers are mainly focused on getting it to not destroy your
> data, with mixed success.  An obvious example of this is that if you
> read a file from a pair of mirrors, the filesystem decides which drive
> in the pair to use based on whether the PID doing the read is even or
> odd.
>
> Fundamentally I haven't seen any arguments as to why btrfs should be
> any worse than zfs.  It just hasn't been implemented completely.  But,
> if you want a filesystem today and not in 10 years you need to take
> that into account.
I switched from ZFS to btrfs a few years ago when it appeared that ZFS
wasn't really going anywhere while btrfs was under active development. It
looks like I backed the wrong horse and should investigate switching back.


--
Neil Bothwick

C&W music backward: get yer dog, wife, job, truck, kids, and sobriety
back.

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: {OT?} which fs on 1.8TB partition

Neil Bothwick
In reply to this post by J. Roeleveld
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:59:39 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:

> > Although, I will also be switching to dovecot's mdbox format when I
> > set up my next server, so the issue of lots of small files won't be
> > nearly as big.  
>
> mdbox? Is this a single file per mail folder?

It's multiple mails per file and multiple files per mailbox.

> The main reason I switched to maildir several decades ago was precisely
> the issues (by design) mbox has.
> A single corrupted email WILL kill the entire folder.

https://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/dbox


--
Neil Bothwick

For every action, there is an equal and opposite malfunction.

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment
12