Best filesystem for storing media?

  Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
xgamer99 Offline
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
I currently use ext4 for my filesystem on my media partition (hold movies, music, etc.) I will be acquiring a new hard drive soon, so I was wondering if there is a better filesystem out there that goes well with media storage (better performance, etc)
find quote
barrygordon Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 107
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 0
Location: Merritt ISland FL
Post: #2
Might want to look at Rieserfs
find quote
brw02005 Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
Well there is no best file system. Basically, it depends what you are doing. For large files I suggest XFS. For small files and operating systems I suggest ext4. For solid state drive I suggest ext2. Once btrfs is complete it will be the best for solid state drives and the most feature complete. However, btrfs will always be slower on a normal hard drives as it has more feature such as cloning and spanning. I don't suggest reiserfs as it has some known corruption problems as it degrades over time.

Basically decide your application and go with it. I currently have two terabytes formated XFS for my movies. You really appreciate the speed when you have to move a big 1080P file.
find quote
xgamer99 Offline
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
Thanks. Yes, I will be hosting a decently large files for movies (~2GB each, but a lot of them) and few 1080p ones (Avatar is an astounding 14GB). Then there's 720p TV Shows that sit at about 1-1.5GB a piece.

Maybe I should break it up into multiple file systems, one for large movie files, and one for smaller Music / Misc video files. I'll take a look into them.

^_^
find quote
mr.sparkle Offline
Fan
Posts: 415
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 2
Post: #5
Quote:large files for movies (~2GB each, but a lot of them) and few 1080p ones (Avatar is an astounding 14GB)
respectfully disagree
find quote
linuxluemmel Offline
Donor
Posts: 870
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 0
Location: Lucern / Switzerland
Post: #6
barrygordon Wrote:Might want to look at Rieserfs

- NO
I would never use reiser fs anymore ..... It had a great perfomance only with small files ... and sometimes after a file-check do files go to /dev/null :-(

As it was said before ....
Big data containers xfs
and the rest ext4
find quote
P.Kosunen Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #7
brw02005 Wrote:For solid state drive I suggest ext2.

I recommend ext4 because it has trim support.

Ext4 works well with big media files also.
find quote
prae5 Offline
Team-XBMC Forum Moderator
Posts: 2,064
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 34
Location: Cambridge, UK
Post: #8
zfs
find quote
MacUsers Offline
Fan
Posts: 407
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 0
Location: London, UK
Post: #9
prae5 Wrote:zfs
doesn't it have some problem with using NFS4, although if has built-in NFS4 support? Cheers!!

MONEUAL 320B | ASUS P5Q-VM | Core2Duo E6320 | GeForce GT220 | Kingston KVR 800Mz HyperX DDR2 4GB (2 x 2GB) | UJ-120 BD-ROM | Pioneer VSX-920-K | KEF KHT3005SE-W | Panasonic TH-37PV500B | Ubuntu 10.04 | XBMCbuntu [ v10.0, r35648 ]
find quote
Anastrophe Offline
Donor
Posts: 259
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 0
Location: Dubai, UAE
Post: #10
prae5 Wrote:zfs

o/ (high five)
find quote
prae5 Offline
Team-XBMC Forum Moderator
Posts: 2,064
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 34
Location: Cambridge, UK
Post: #11
MacUsers Wrote:doesn't it have some problem with using NFS4, although if has built-in NFS4 support? Cheers!!

Never had any problems with nfs support. I use nfs to feed my esxi server and also mount my thumbs directory on some of my xbmc boxes this way.
find quote
jawilljr Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 5
Post: #12
Me I vote for JFS.

Jerry
find quote
linuxluemmel Offline
Donor
Posts: 870
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 0
Location: Lucern / Switzerland
Post: #13
prae5 Wrote:zfs

LOL I didn't know that linux support ZFS ;-)
find quote
Temar Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 8
Post: #14
xgamer99 Wrote:I currently use ext4 for my filesystem on my media partition (hold movies, music, etc.) I will be acquiring a new hard drive soon, so I was wondering if there is a better filesystem out there that goes well with media storage (better performance, etc)

The filesystem for a mediacenter does not matter if you are using traditional harddisks (not SSDs). When talking about media centers we are looking at sequential reads of large files. The performance of large sequential reads is determined by the harddisk itself. No filesystem will make a noticable difference here. The performance differences are only interesting for academic purposes - you won't notice a difference on daily use.

What is more, all video codecs try to reduce the bandwidth as much as possible. You won't find a video which even comes close to the maximum read/write bandwidth of your harddrive.

If you want to see some benchmarks, use Google and search for "phoronix filesystem benchmark". Phoronix benchmarks all Linux filesystems on a regular basis. You can also download the Phoronix Test Suite and benchmark your harddrive yourself using different filesystems.

EDIT:
When benchmarking yourself, always keep your use case in mind. There is of course a difference between all these filesystems, so depending on the benchmark you are running, you will get different results. When looking at benchmarks which were i.e. designed for database servers you will see huge differences in filesystem performance. However this is not your use case.

For simple sequential read/write performance checks you can also use the command line tool dd. You don't need to download the (rather big) Phoronix Test Suite.
(This post was last modified: 2010-10-12 01:23 by Temar.)
find quote
Temar Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 8
Post: #15
linuxluemmel Wrote:LOL I didn't know that linux support ZFS ;-)

It does, but only as a fuse-filesystem (Filesystem in User Space). As a user space filesystem is very slow compared to a filesystem running in kernel space, ZFS is not the best choice on Linux. When running Linux one should really stick with a filesystem which is implemented as a kernel driver.

EDIT:
ZFS will also be available as a kernel module, soon: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=ar...ming&num=1
However the implementation is not oss.
(This post was last modified: 2010-10-12 01:35 by Temar.)
find quote