So, since I have to rebuild my mp3 library anyway, I thought I’d do a comparison between storing my mp3s on either reiserfs or xfs. I already know that reiserfs is horrible for recovery, but hopefully I won’t need that. Reiser is supposed to be good for storage because of the tail-packing thing, though.
I’ve recovered about 18GB of songs now, the biggest file is about 50MB; the average is about 8MB. Somewhat surprisingly, the xfs filesystem (/mnt/a) actually is using less space to store the identical directory structure (artist/album/mp3).
sauer@humpy:~$ for D in /srv/nfs4/music /mnt/a; do find $D | wc -l; done 1589 1589 sauer@humpy:~$ du -ks /srv/nfs4/music /mnt/a 12380231 /srv/nfs4/music 12369836 /mnt/a sauer@humpy:~$ df -k /srv/nfs4/music /mnt/a Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/idevol-music 52427196 12414684 40012512 24% /srv/nfs4/music /dev/mapper/idevol-music2 52403200 12403660 39999540 24% /mnt/a sauer@humpy:~$ sed -n '/music/p' /proc/mounts /dev/mapper/idevol-music /srv/nfs4/music reiserfs rw,noatime 0 0 /dev/mapper/idevol-music2 /mnt/a xfs rw,relatime,attr2,delaylog,logbsize=64k,sunit=128,swidth=384,noquota 0 0
So, since xfs also recovers faster and is more actively maintained, I’m switching to xfs.
