5

I have a partition and it has ~100 GB of audio files. Most of them are mp3 or ogg, each has size of ~15 MB. I update it on a weekly basis. Right now, the partition is formatted as ext4. I have read that reiserfs might perform better with small sized files. Would I gain anything from reiserfs in my case? Or do you suggest another FS for me?

  • 7
    15MB is not a "small" file. That would be more like 2KB. – cjm Feb 10 '12 at 16:50
  • You have to remember people, in the communities, literally just ape established answers. Which is acceptable, until the knowledge that lead to those answers becomes deprecated. Before ext4, more specifically ext3 + dir_index, there were many good reason to use other file systems. today's ext4, is almost always preferred over reiserfs. I wont deny reiser4, it is on the level, but it's not in Linux mainline. BTW user cjm is correct, 15MB is not remotely small. in regards to a FS. – J. M. Becker Feb 10 '12 at 23:48
7

It's more like a question to superuser or serverfault communities. There's some good answers in this article at serverfault: filesystem for millions of small files. Nowadays 15MB file could appear "small" to a user but it ain't for FS. Anyway, in your described situation, you are good to go with ext4.

2

ReiserFS is efficient with small files, but 15Mb is not considered small. With Reiser4 effectively dead, you should look at the space-efficient packing of small files of BtrFS

0

I had the problem this weekend: 1000000 text files of 5-20 kb. These text files are never changed, so the best solution for me was mksquashfs: Today disk I/O is much more expensive than uncompressing 1 MB extra.

It is, however, not a general solution: If you need to change or add files this will not work (In which case I would recommend Btrfs).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.