Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 7:15 PM Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> My thinking, even if I went to 95%, it should be OK given my usage. It >> might even be OK at 99%. Thing is, I know at some point, something is >> going to happen. I just been wondering what that point is and what it >> will do. Oh, I do use ext4. > If you're using ext4 and this is a dedicated filesystem that no > critical applications need to be able to write to, then there really > are no bad consequences for filling the entire disk. With ext4 if you > want to get the same back you just need to rm some file. Really the > only downside for you in this use case is not being able to cram > something onto it when you want to. > > Now, if you were running btrfs or cephfs or some other exotic > filesystems, then it would be a whole different matter, as those > struggle to recover space when they get too full. Something like ceph > also trades free space for failover space if you lose a disk, so if > you want the cluster to self-heal you need free space for it to work > with (and you want it to still be 85% free or so even after losing a > disk), >
Sounds like ext4 is the best file system for what I'm doing then. It's well maintained plus can handle being full. I'm surprised to hear that other what I consider to be newer and better file systems aren't able to handle that sort of thing tho. I wasn't expecting that. I could see some RAID systems having issues but not some of the more advanced file systems that are designed to handle large amounts of data. Thanks again. At least I have a much better idea of where I stand and if needed, how far I can push things. I still plan to prevent going above 90% but if life happens, I can go longer. Dale :-) :-)
