View Full Version : 2gb clusters?!
insomniac
01-04-2006, 07:31 PM
As I recall, linux can do 2gb clusters. Is this true? Worth it? Seems like this would kill any fragmentation issues!
I.
heffe2001
01-04-2006, 07:39 PM
If you use clusters that big, I'm going to bet you'll waste a ton of space...
clusters what do mean storage nodes or serial and parallel processing
Now that swap partition limit may still be 2GB
heffe2001
01-04-2006, 08:14 PM
If the cluster size doesn't affect the storage nodes, how's it going ot help with fragmentation? On a windows PC, cluster size directly relates to the smallest size a file can use on disk. A 1k file on a 64k cluster-sized drive takes 64k. While I'm assuming that Linux functions the same (never payed much attention, and I always accepted the default values for all that in Linux).
dagar
01-04-2006, 08:20 PM
2gb partition? lol, that's the partition limitation for FAT16
that said, ext2 has a partition size limit of 2TB but a file size limitation of 2GB
XFS and JFS can handle the larger files (+4GB files) ... steer clear of ReiserFS3/4
heffe2001
01-04-2006, 08:28 PM
2gb partition? lol, that's the partition limitation for FAT16
that said, ext2 has a partition size limit of 2TB but a file size limitation of 2GB
XFS and JFS can handle the larger files (+4GB files) ... steer clear of ReiserFS3/4
Actually we're talking about 2g cluster size. :D
You take a performance hit with the Reiser FS's don't you?
mikesm
01-04-2006, 08:47 PM
2gb partition? lol, that's the partition limitation for FAT16
that said, ext2 has a partition size limit of 2TB but a file size limitation of 2GB
XFS and JFS can handle the larger files (+4GB files) ... steer clear of ReiserFS3/4
I use XFS on my TB raid server. Very high performance journaling filesystem that's built for heavy duty I/O. It uses DRAM like mad for buffering to improve performance - exactly what you want in a file server.
Linux has lots of advantages for storage over windows. That said, I strongly hold to the view that large amounts of storage should be in a different computer than the HTPC. HTPC's tend to have issues with noise and ventilation, and adding a lot of disk to that doesn't do the system or the disk any favors.
I can testify that you can achieve high levels of performance serving from Linux to windows over GB ethernet.
Thanks,
Mike
insomniac
01-04-2006, 10:03 PM
so anyways...
2gb clusters is just food for thought. I suspect that it would only be useful if you have your recording settings at 2gb/hr. So in my case, I record at 3.2gb/hr, so it may be more beneficial to have .65gb (or so) clusters.
Doesnt seem like waste to me. Plus, I would assume that it will be helpful to reduce seek time and generally better on a HD.
I.
EDIT: meant .65gb
heffe2001
01-04-2006, 10:06 PM
I was going to suggest something along the 64m range myself, or at worst whatever size you're recording settings are / 2, so a half-hour show would fit into one cluster (you'd better pad the numbers just a bit tho, or you'll waste a ton of space if your show goes over by a couple minutes/megs...)
I just hope they offer a upgrade for us so we can convert an existing SageTV key to a Linux Key...
insomniac
01-04-2006, 10:10 PM
just having anything over kb will be a great option in my book!
I was going to suggest something along the 64m range myself, or at worst whatever size you're recording settings are / 2, so a half-hour show would fit into one cluster (you'd better pad the numbers just a bit tho, or you'll waste a ton of space if your show goes over by a couple minutes/megs...)
I just hope they offer a upgrade for us so we can convert an existing SageTV key to a Linux Key...
spike5884
01-10-2006, 08:49 PM
I use XFS on my TB raid server. Very high performance journaling filesystem that's built for heavy duty I/O. It uses DRAM like mad for buffering to improve performance - exactly what you want in a file server.
Mike,
If you don't mind, could you please post the specs of your raid server.
Mainly: OS, raid level, CPU, amount of ram....
mikesm
01-10-2006, 10:56 PM
Mike,
If you don't mind, could you please post the specs of your raid server.
Mainly: OS, raid level, CPU, amount of ram....
I run Suse 10.0 linux - SAMBA builtin
AMD 3500+ 939 CPU
DFI NF4-Ultra MB (Has 4 SATA II ports on board)
5x WD 320GB SATA disks
1 GB RAM
PCI video card
SIIG PCI SATA controller (for the 5th disk)
Coolermaster Stacker case
Runs very well.
Thanks,
Mike
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.