On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:44 AM Bruce Dawson <j...@codemeta.com> wrote: > Well, you're more concerned with files than large blocks of data, so I > don't think either matter - other than standard filesystem performance.
I wouldn't go that far. In particular, snapshots at the block layer are generally less efficient compared to filesystem integrated snapshots. With all those static files, built-in checksums (vs external MD5/SHA1) is rather nice. EXT4 does handle large directories better than its predecessors, but others are still better, or so I'm told. Tuning for file sizes and inodes gets old, too. Mutt disk collections (i.e., different ages and specs) is suboptimal for traditional RAID; allegedly the new guys can handle that better. And so on. Granted, I've never actually tried any of these things (or I wouldn't be asking), but the brochure makes them sound really cool. > ZFS is nice, but resource intensive. Care to expound? Even if your use case isn't easily analogous to mine, it'd be interesting reading for me and others, I expect. > How about choosing btrfs so we (the community) can learn more about it?! Well, whichever road I end up going down, I'll be happy to share notes on the route once I get there. :-) -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
