> In a few earlier postings I indicated the problems I had with EXT4 and
> a hard drive that was about 75% full (320gig at 75%). Performance was
> such that simple uploads or downloads crawled to a 10k / second pace,
> or even stalled for long periods of time.
That sounds like an ext4-specific problem. Most likely any other
filesystem would not show such a problem (tho all filesystems do slow
down to some extent as the free-space goes down, but 75% is generally
considered as "almost empty" in this respect).
And even ext4 would probably not show this problem if you could figure
out what was the cause of the problem or if you upgraded to a slightly
more recent version of ext4 (after all, it's still a work-in-progress).
> Ergo, if someone inadvertantly pulls out the drive's plug from the USB
> physical port, we are almost guaranteed to not have drive corruption.
> There may be some data loss, but no drive corruption. That to me is
> most important.
"drive corruption" means that the drive itself has some corruption,
which is unrelated to the filesystem (or partitioning) you use on
the drive. So you probably mean "filesystem corruption" instead.
Note that most/all recent filesystems provide such a "guarantee"
(modulo bugs): ext3, jfs, xfs, you name it.
> I am not certain about storage efficiencies. Would 10gigs of data
> with EXT4 use less diskspace than 10 gigs of data stored in btfrs
> format. (What's a gig when terrabyte drives sell for around $60.00.
There are always some slight differences in this respect, but they
should usually be lost in the noise (a few percents at most).
Stefan
_______________________________________________
mlug mailing list
[email protected]
https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
