Migrate to 3TB disk
 

On Vi, 14 sep 12, 15:20:26, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> Now currently my machine has two small (750G) disks that it stores the
> bulk of its files on, and one tiny (250G) IDE disk that it boots from.

Tiny? That's almost as big as my entire storage (2 x 160 GiB).

> (1c) file and partition size limits among ext2, 3, and 4. (my6 ext3's
> were migrated from ext2, so they may share the limits of the original
> ext2fs)

For partitions in the TiB size you will definitely want ext4 or xfs as
ext3 fsck times would be horrible.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

Migrate to 3TB disk
 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:55:58 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Vi, 14 sep 12, 15:20:26, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>>
>> Now currently my machine has two small (750G) disks that it stores the
>> bulk of its files on, and one tiny (250G) IDE disk that it boots from.
>
> Tiny? That's almost as big as my entire storage (2 x 160 GiB).

Yeah. I still remember when that was a huge disk. I even remember the
time that 5 megabytes was a big hard disk. I'm just trying to keep up
with the times, without resorting to terms like a very very very very
large disk :)

>
>> (1c) file and partition size limits among ext2, 3, and 4. (my6 ext3's
>> were migrated from ext2, so they may share the limits of the original
>> ext2fs)
>
> For partitions in the TiB size you will definitely want ext4 or xfs as
> ext3 fsck times would be horrible.

Which probably means building a new file system and copying all the
files. Even if it's possible to upgrade in place, it would probably
mean preserving the existing low-level structure, like 512-byte sectors
instead of 4K sectors.

Anybody have any input as to whether ext4 or xfs would offer better long-
term reliability?

>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei

Thanks

-- hendrik



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k2vp4s$5pk$2@ger.gmane.org

Migrate to 3TB disk
 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:22:51 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:

>
>> (1d) EFI
>
> Only applies with a pretty new motherboard that supports it.

I was under the impression that an old BIOS (which is what I probably
have) doesn't know how to understand how to understand the partition
table that comes with GPT, which goes with EFI, and that therefore there
had to be some kind of shim installed to bridge the difference so that it
can get to grub -- some kind of bootable BIOS replacement, which may take
a partition of its own, presumably with some kind of kludgy hybrid of GPT
and the old partition table.

I could be wrong, and my information could be out-of-date. Most of the
information about large disk partitioning I find on the web worries about
the 8.5GB and the 137GB limit.

Thanks.

-- hendrik


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k2vq0p$5pk$3@ger.gmane.org

Migrate to 3TB disk
 

On Vi, 14 sep 12, 17:22:36, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> Which probably means building a new file system and copying all the
> files. Even if it's possible to upgrade in place, it would probably
> mean preserving the existing low-level structure, like 512-byte sectors
> instead of 4K sectors.

There are docs about migrating ext3 to ext4.

> Anybody have any input as to whether ext4 or xfs would offer better long-
> term reliability?

Both ext4 and xfs are under active development. The only contender would
be btrfs, which is still considered experimental.

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic

Migrate to 3TB disk
 

On 9/14/2012 3:22 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Vi, 14 sep 12, 17:22:36, Hendrik Boom wrote:


Which probably means building a new file system and copying all the
files. Even if it's possible to upgrade in place, it would probably
mean preserving the existing low-level structure, like 512-byte sectors
instead of 4K sectors.


There are docs about migrating ext3 to ext4.


Anybody have any input as to whether ext4 or xfs would offer better long-
term reliability?


There are factions devoted to each. In the short term, either would do,
although I favor ext4 due to the extremely large installed base (of ext?
family). I don't think it will lack for maintenance. In the long term, I
foresee btrfs becoming popular, based on its feature set and potential
benefits.


If you are migrating from an ext? fs, it seems to make the most sense to
me to go with ext4.



Both ext4 and xfs are under active development. The only contender would
be btrfs, which is still considered experimental.



Yes. I think btrfs is not yet suitable for a system that is used
heavily, as all the pieces of the puzzle are not in place yet.


XFS may be more reliable according to some criteria, but according to
some people, it is more likely to suffer fs corruption in the event of a
power outage or hardware failure or kernel crash. This is a source of
some fierce debating.


ext4 is relatively new, not having been considered stable for all that
long, though it *has* been several kernels ago that it was considered
stable. Since before the release of Squeeze.


Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I think either XFS or ext4 would
be a good choice.


Mark




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 5053DCA7.20800@allums.com">http://lists.debian.org/5053DCA7.20800@allums.com