Re: [OCLUG-Tech] optimal choice for filesystem type for SSD drive doing big builds?
> As the Fedora default is ext4, use ext4. Also ext4 is possibly the > best debugged FS in the world. Still doesn't prevent it from having seriously scary data loss bugs like lest than two years ago. > IMHO the advantages to btrfs are better suited to large multi-user > filesystems anyway. Stuff like full data checksums to detect silent bit > rot, Why would that not be appropriate for users? I'd have loved to have that feature four five times already; would have saved me from massive data loss a few times already. > snapshots, Maybe some users may want that. ___ Linux mailing list Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux
Re: [OCLUG-Tech] optimal choice for filesystem type for SSD drive doing big builds?
> On 16/01/11, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> >> normally, if i was interested in longevity, i'd put the *source* for >> all my builds on the SSD, and leave the generation of build artifacts >> on the regular drive. but at this point, i don't really care. Given the guesstimates in this article you likely won't wear out your SSD: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840-evo-review-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/3 That is specific to the Samsung, but they are all using similar tech so the numbers are should be similar. TLDR: @100GB/day a 500 MB drive should last 15 years. >> under these circumstances, is there an optimal choice for filesystem >> type given what i'll be doing on that drive? i'm running fedora 23 so >> ext4 is the simple and obvious choice, but does anyone have experience >> with a different filesystem that would be preferable? The CentOS 7 default is xfs. The Ubuntu 14.04 default is ext4. The only difference I have found is that xfs can re-size a filesystem over 16TiB. (Ext4 on Ubuntu 14.04 can resize up to 16TiB, and create, but not resize beyond 16TiB.) Performance wise they are each faster then the other in different edge cases. As the Fedora default is ext4, use ext4. Also ext4 is possibly the best debugged FS in the world. As RGB pointed out btrfs is still in the not-quite-trusted stage. Although I know people who claim they use it in production (and they are crazy). IMHO the advantages to btrfs are better suited to large multi-user filesystems anyway. Stuff like full data checksums to detect silent bit rot, snapshots, efficient data replication and backup, deduplication, and fully integrated raid5/6 (pending). -- sg ___ Linux mailing list Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux
Re: [OCLUG-Tech] optimal choice for filesystem type for SSD drive doing big builds?
On 16/01/11, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > i just added (as a second HD in my laptop) a 480G SSD hard drive, on > which i want to do fairly sizable builds (kernel, yocto project, > etc.). given that it's a fairly sizable drive, it should take that > much longer before i wear it out. > > normally, if i was interested in longevity, i'd put the *source* for > all my builds on the SSD, and leave the generation of build artifacts > on the regular drive. but at this point, i don't really care. given > the time i'll be saving, i'm more than happy to put it all on the SSD > and wear the heck out of it, then replace it when it wears out and > keep on going. > > under these circumstances, is there an optimal choice for filesystem > type given what i'll be doing on that drive? i'm running fedora 23 so > ext4 is the simple and obvious choice, but does anyone have experience > with a different filesystem that would be preferable? possibly btrfs? I had btrfs running on f18 and ended up re-installing with ext4 due to a known interaction with firefox and btrfs that may have killed the spinning rust in my work Thinkpad. I'm now running f23 on an SSD as the primary system drive and now using the warranty replacement spinning rust for personal data, all running ext4. As far as I know, BTRFS still hasn't made it from Fedora to RHEL because it hasn't shown itself to be quite stable enough yet. > thoughts? > > rday > > -- > > > Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA > http://crashcourse.ca > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday > LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday > > > ___ > Linux mailing list > Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca > http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux slainte mhath, RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs -- ~\-- ~\ -- \___ o \@ @Ride yer bike! Ottawa, ON, CANADA -- Lo_>__M__\\/\%__\\/\% Vote! -- _GTVS6#790__(*)__(*)(*)(*)_ ___ Linux mailing list Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux
[OCLUG-Tech] optimal choice for filesystem type for SSD drive doing big builds?
i just added (as a second HD in my laptop) a 480G SSD hard drive, on which i want to do fairly sizable builds (kernel, yocto project, etc.). given that it's a fairly sizable drive, it should take that much longer before i wear it out. normally, if i was interested in longevity, i'd put the *source* for all my builds on the SSD, and leave the generation of build artifacts on the regular drive. but at this point, i don't really care. given the time i'll be saving, i'm more than happy to put it all on the SSD and wear the heck out of it, then replace it when it wears out and keep on going. under these circumstances, is there an optimal choice for filesystem type given what i'll be doing on that drive? i'm running fedora 23 so ext4 is the simple and obvious choice, but does anyone have experience with a different filesystem that would be preferable? possibly btrfs? thoughts? rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ Linux mailing list Linux@lists.oclug.on.ca http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux
