[lug] Best block size?

[Gary Hodges]

The Matt wrote:
> 
> 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.

I was going to format it ext3.  I've never really considered using a
filesystem other than ext2 or ext3.  No plans to NFS or RAID of any
type.  If I use ReiserFS does the whole system have to be that or can I
just make that one disk ReiserFS?

Gary