Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.


  Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2006, 08:13 AM   #1
LQ Newbie
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: England
Distribution: Gentoo, RedHat, FreeBSD, OpenBSD
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: 0
EXT3 parameters

need to make a fileystem for a cache used by our backup system. This cache will simply be 2 files of 2GB each.

My question is about the mkfs.ext3 parameters. I am assuming I need

1 - small number of inodes
2 - large block size
3 - large number of bytes per inode

Im thinking something along the lines of:

mkfs.ext3 -n -b 4096 -T largefile4 /dev/sda10 -v - block size of 4096 (max for ext3?) and 1 inode per 4MB (max for ext3?)

mke2fs 1.32 (09-Nov-2002)
Filesystem label=
OS type: Linux
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
1472 inodes, 1502069 blocks
75103 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
46 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
32 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736

Anybody have anything to say on this im not a filesystem expert? Also what to do about journaling? Can it be tuned to have as little overhead on the perfomance as possible?

The end result just needs to be the best performance possible writing (when backing up) and reading (when restoring) for the 2GB files. Journaling is not important as far as recovering data goes as they can just be re-created if there is a problem they do not contain any static data.

Old 12-07-2006, 10:07 AM   #2
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Distribution: Debian and Ubuntu
Posts: 1,295

Rep: Reputation: 335Reputation: 335Reputation: 335Reputation: 335

I'd use ext2 for that - it's a lot faster than ext3. Sorry, I'm no expert either - I think the default values for mkfs.ext2 would probably be fine.

Using the mount option "noatime" speeds reading time up quite a lot in my experience. With the default "atime", every time a file is read, the time is written to disk.

Some programs also put a lot of files in one directory. With some thousand files in a directory, it tends to slow down to a crawl. If that is the case, use ReiserFS instead, it doesn't slow down like ext2/3 does.


ext3, file, filesystem, mkfs, system, tune2fs

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Western Digital My Book Ext3 format reports "Ext3-fs: Journal inode is deleted" ChronusDark Linux - Desktop 3 10-31-2006 04:56 PM
convert and merge a fat32 to ext3 and then merge w/ another ext3? nkoplm Linux - General 3 03-23-2006 11:37 PM
Ext3 & tune2fs tweaking question for ext3 experts wrc1944 Linux - General 8 12-11-2005 08:45 AM
how to convert ext3 to ntfs? cannot even see ext3 partition parv Linux - Hardware 1 12-31-2004 03:56 PM
Best ext3 75GB partition parameters... sewer_monkey Linux - General 3 07-10-2002 03:47 PM > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM.

Main Menu
Write for LQ is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration