[lug] Best block size?

[The Matt]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 11:09, Gary Hodges wrote:
> I've installed a new disk that I will be filling with many thousands of
> files with typical sizes of:
> 
> -rw-r--r--    1 hodges   hodges      36064 Jul 22 14:39
> 20030701185900.jpg
> -rw-r--r--    1 hodges   hodges       3769 Jul 22 14:39
> 20030701185900.png
> -rw-r--r--    1 hodges   hodges        711 Jul 22 14:39
> 20030701185900.properties
> 
> -rw-r--r--    1 hodges   hodges      25685 Jul  3 10:33
> 20030509054400.jpg
> -rw-r--r--    1 hodges   hodges       2559 Jul  3 10:33
> 20030509054400.png
> -rw-r--r--    1 hodges   hodges        734 Jul  3 10:33
> 20030509054400.properties
> 
> 
> That is the approximate high and low range of the .jpg files.  While
> this will be the main use for the disk, I will also create temporary
> .iso files to write to CD.  What is the ideal block size to use?  Why?

Well, I can't answer this very well, but I'm wondering what filesystem
you are thinking of using?  I'd probably recommend ReiserFS if you have
many thousands of small files.  ReiserFS doesn't really use blocks but
trees.  It can often be 10x faster than ext3 on small files.  On large
files (e.g., ISOs) it's usually comparable to ext3 (no big advantage).

But, if doesn't work well with NFS or software RAID.  So, if that's what
you'll be using, ReiserFS won't work.

Matt

-- 
"And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony, anyway?  I mean,
all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good
and crazy, ooh ooh ooh, the sky's the limit!" -- The Tick
  The Matt -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20030915/48e87cc0/attachment.pgp>