 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bought a new 750G hard drive today, so I thought I'd test out the
formatting speed question. All tests on USB2 connection to same computer.
Format as ext3 - 10:10 (That's 10 minutes ten seconds)
Fsck as ext3 - 11:30 (No files)
Format as NTFS (quick) - 00:14
chkdsk (no files) - 00:06
I'm pretty sure ext2/3 have control information proportional to the size
of the drive, where NTFS doesn't.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Format as ext3 - 10:10 (That's 10 minutes ten seconds)
> Fsck as ext3 - 11:30 (No files)
> Format as NTFS (quick) - 00:14
> chkdsk (no files) - 00:06
It seems that you are trying to make some kind of point or statement.
However, that would be quite moot, unless you have to format disks on
a daily basis, which is quite rare.
(Btw, are you absolutely sure fsck is not performing a surface scan?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Format as ext3 - 10:10 (That's 10 minutes ten seconds)
>> Fsck as ext3 - 11:30 (No files)
>
>> Format as NTFS (quick) - 00:14
>> chkdsk (no files) - 00:06
>
> It seems that you are trying to make some kind of point or statement.
> However, that would be quite moot, unless you have to format disks on
> a daily basis, which is quite rare.
More trying to figure out how much of the disk surface gets erased
during a format by measuring how long it takes. (14 seconds is obviously
nowhere near enough time to erase a significant percentage of the drive,
for example.)
Hey Darren, try a low-level format now...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Format as ext3 - 10:10 (That's 10 minutes ten seconds)
>> Fsck as ext3 - 11:30 (No files)
>
>> Format as NTFS (quick) - 00:14
>> chkdsk (no files) - 00:06
>
> It seems that you are trying to make some kind of point or statement.
A couple weeks ago, Andrew pointed out that his ext2 format took a few
seconds and his NTFS format took 20 minutes. I measured it on a 40G
partition and found they each took less than 15 seconds if you didn't do
the scan, but I remembered it taking much longer at work.
So when I got a work-sized drive at home that wasn't full of stuff I
wanted to keep, I tried it again.
> However, that would be quite moot, unless you have to format disks on
> a daily basis, which is quite rare.
Yep, pretty much. I'm not trying to bash anything. I didn't even try the
other Linux file systems.
> (Btw, are you absolutely sure fsck is not performing a surface scan?)
Yes. A surface scan would take about 15 hours on this drive. (I'm
filling it with random data right now, as I don't really trust to
backups a drive I've never actually written to.) It's going about one
gig per 50 seconds.
I'll also note that at work, an fsck on a file system with a lot of
files (like, a couple million files) takes maybe 20 to 40 minutes on an
IDE drive, as opposed to just a couple on NTFS. Clearly different
trade-offs were made in the design of the file systems.
I'd like to find a file system I can reliably use from OSX, Windows, and
Linux, myself. OSX can almost handle NTFS (as in, it seems to be able to
read/write NTFS as long as you don't hit the parts that aren't
supportable with the UNIX file system semantics), but as far as I can
tell, NTFS still isn't safely writable from Linux? That's what google is
telling me, at least.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hey Darren, try a low-level format now...
I don't think you can do that over USB. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I didn't even try the other Linux file systems.
I use ReiserFS for all my linux partitions. Besides being journaled,
it's more compact than many other FSs because it packs file tails into
single sectors. (In other words, if the data in the last sector of two
files would fit in a single sector, ReiserFS puts then into the same
sector.)
One disadvantage of ReiserFS is that to run reiserfsck the partition
must be read-only. This means that if you need to run it on your main
partition you'll have to boot to single-user mode and remount the
partition to read-only before you can run reiserfsck.
Another minor (in my case very minor) quirk is that deleting very
large files can take some time (in the order of several seconds),
unlike with some other FSs where file deletion happens instantaneously.
(OTOH, I don't know if this is a property of ReiserFS itself or the
journaling mechanism, and if other journaled file systems suffer from
the same phenomenon.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I use ReiserFS for all my linux partitions.
I've not used it, but I've heard good things about it.
> Besides being journaled,
> it's more compact than many other FSs
I doubt I'd notice the difference. Heck, I don't even notice the
difference between ext2 and ext3...
What I would be curios to know is this. The traditional Unix file
permissions system allows you to assign a set of permissions to the
"owner", another set to the "group", and a third set to "everybody
else". Is there any kind of extension that allows you to assign
arbitrary permissions to individual users and/or groups beyond what the
traditional system allows? (I would anticipate the Big Problem with
attempting to do this would be that it breaks everything that expects
the old behaviour!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Besides being journaled,
> > it's more compact than many other FSs
> I doubt I'd notice the difference. Heck, I don't even notice the
> difference between ext2 and ext3...
You might notice a difference in disk usage if you have enormous
amounts of small files. (In a non-compacting FS every file takes a
multiple of 4 kB, rounded up. With ReiserFS they can take less. For
example if you have 1000 files, each one 128 bytes in length, instead
of taking 4 MB of disk space they only take 128 kB.)
> What I would be curios to know is this. The traditional Unix file
> permissions system allows you to assign a set of permissions to the
> "owner", another set to the "group", and a third set to "everybody
> else". Is there any kind of extension that allows you to assign
> arbitrary permissions to individual users and/or groups beyond what the
> traditional system allows? (I would anticipate the Big Problem with
> attempting to do this would be that it breaks everything that expects
> the old behaviour!)
There might be some file systems which support additional permissions,
but I don't remember right now.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:03:47 +0100 schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> I use ReiserFS for all my linux partitions.
>
> I've not used it, but I've heard good things about it.
>
>> Besides being journaled,
>> it's more compact than many other FSs
>
> I doubt I'd notice the difference. Heck, I don't even notice the
> difference between ext2 and ext3...
>
> What I would be curios to know is this. The traditional Unix file
> permissions system allows you to assign a set of permissions to the
> "owner", another set to the "group", and a third set to "everybody
> else". Is there any kind of extension that allows you to assign
> arbitrary permissions to individual users and/or groups beyond what the
> traditional system allows? (I would anticipate the Big Problem with
> attempting to do this would be that it breaks everything that expects
> the old behaviour!)
It is called "Access Control Lists" and part of POSIX. Manpage is called
acl(5).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I didn't even try the other Linux file systems.
>
> I use ReiserFS for all my linux partitions. Besides being journaled,
> it's more compact than many other FSs because it packs file tails into
> single sectors. (In other words, if the data in the last sector of two
> files would fit in a single sector, ReiserFS puts then into the same
> sector.)
That's handy. (The difference between ext2 and ext3 is that ext3 is
journaled. You can even switch back and forth between the two of them by
essentially deleting or creating the journal file.)
> One disadvantage of ReiserFS is that to run reiserfsck the partition
> must be read-only. This means that if you need to run it on your main
> partition you'll have to boot to single-user mode and remount the
> partition to read-only before you can run reiserfsck.
I'm pretty sure that's true of ext3, also. Indeed, I'm not sure I know
any file system you can check for consistency while it's in use. (Not if
you want to actually correct flaws, at least.)
Does it work to set /forcefsck and reboot, or do you actually have to be
sitting there to do it?
> Another minor (in my case very minor) quirk is that deleting very
> large files can take some time (in the order of several seconds),
> unlike with some other FSs where file deletion happens instantaneously.
Yeah. I've had files large enough that it takes literally minutes to
delete on ext3, so that's no surprise either. Ext3 actually stores a
list of blocks the file occupies, even if they're contiguous, so
deleting a 500-gig file is going to take time just looking up all the
blocks it's on.
I just used ext3 because it was the default and I had to get stuff
working before I knew as much as I do now. It turns out it's one of the
more poorly-performing file systems available.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
