2gb clusters?!

[insomniac]

As I recall, linux can do 2gb clusters. Is this true? Worth it? Seems like this would kill any fragmentation issues!

I.

[heffe2001]

If you use clusters that big, I'm going to bet you'll waste a ton of space...

[SHS]

clusters what do mean storage nodes or serial and parallel processing
Now that swap partition limit may still be 2GB

[heffe2001]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dagar

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.

You take a performance hit with the Reiser FS's don't you?

[mikesm]

Originally Posted by dagar

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]

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]

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]

just having anything over kb will be a great option in my book!

Originally Posted by heffe2001

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]

Originally Posted by mikesm

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]

Originally Posted by spike5884

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