On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:34:48PM +0100, Mathias Brodala wrote: > Hi Roberto. > > > I see. I was asking since I have a whole drive full of videos and such which > are > usually between 100MB and 300MB per file. So I guess XFS would not really be > the > best choice for them. I got ext3 everywhere at the moment and wondered if I > could get a bit more performance by using another filesystem. And since I only > used ext3 up until now, I don???t really know which other filesystem to trust. > I would certainly trust XFS. Of course, if you don't have your machine on an UPS, it can cause problems on a crash or power outage. How are your video files being used? Played locally? Streamed to one or two devices? Streamed to hundreds of devices?
Unless you are streaming to many devices, it is likely that you are not yet hitting a bottleneck. As they say, "if it ain't broke." That said, do you notice a particular performance problem? > > XFS supports files up to a size of 8 > > exabytes and filesystems also of size 8 exabytes. I am not sure of the > > limitations on JFS. > > OK, that seems only important for enterprise levels. I don???t think that I > will > reach these sizes at the moment. > I read on Slashdot a while back that Seagate announced 37.5 TB drives will be available in a few years. Petabyte-sized home RAIDs won't be far off :-) Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
