Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 19:05:53 Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 15:39 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
On Dienstag, 2. September 2008, Michael Sullivan wrote:
Can someone please explain to me what's going on with /dev/sda6? I
couldn't log into GNOME after my reboot yesterday, and when I asked for
a df listing in the console, I got this. Shouldn't there be 4GB
available?
camille ~ # df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda6 78G 74G 0G 100% /
udev 10M 184K 9.9M 2% /dev
/dev/sda7 52G 40G 12G 78% /mnt/store
shm 247M 0 247M 0% /dev/shm
catherine:/backup 44G 34G 8.5G 80% /backup/catherine
you have space left, but the inodes are all used up.
Typical problem for fs like extX.
What fs should I use instead? For future reference what's the current
standard?
There isn't one, you get to use whatever filesystem and layout you feel will
get the job done best for you.
You might as well ask what's the current recommended standard 4-wheeled
vehicle (i.e. car) for a family
I use JFS. It's a heck of a lot faster than extX to run a file system
check on I've never run into any problems with inodes, and it's fast to
create/delete files. The vehicle analogy works best, because it really
is to each their own when it comes to file systems.
Here are some file system benchmarks:
http://fsbench.netnation.com/
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
And for the graphically represented results people:
http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/old/?section=projects&item=fs_contest2
To make a long read short:
JFS is less CPU intensive than most other file systems, faster to
create, check, and unmount; however, it's not as fast as others
(ReiserFS being the main one) when it comes to a large directory/file
structure.
-Hal
:-)
