Disk format questions

[dixonge]

I'm trying to determine what file format to use for my NAS drives. Here is what I plan to use the drives for:

Files from both Mac and PC
MP3/AAC audio
Video
Misc. Documents
System backups

I'm using FreeNAS and will be attempting to stream iTunes, but that's not a priority.

Backups will be rsyncd to an external USB drive which is already set up for TimeMachine

So what drive format should one use in this case?

 

[dixonge]

hmmm...60+ views and no responses - perhaps I should clarify...

In setting up my FreeNAS box, I'm ready to format my two hard drives. Primary drive is 160GB, secondary is 60GB (used IDE drives).

UFS? ZFS? NTFS? FAT32? HFS+? Which format works best?

I want to be able to read/write from both Mac and XP boxes.

 

[thiggins]

The disk file format used on a NAS has nothing to do with the ability of networked devices to access it. That is determined by the network file system protocols supported by NAS and clients.

SMB/CIFS is supported by all NASes and NAS distros and most all networked products.

I would just use the default format for FreeNAS, which I believe is UFS.

 

[Steven]

UFS? ZFS? NTFS? FAT32? HFS+? Which format works best?

I want to be able to read/write from both Mac and XP boxes.

From what I read - but I'm just a novice - I am tending towards ext2. That seems, in case of disaster, to be recoverable by everything (we have 2 xp laptops and a linux netbook).

Ext3 seems to be better, but ext3 uses journalling, which seems to mean that you can't spin down disks when idle.

Any format should be readable by your machines, but I'm talking about "taking out the disk and have it read by a different system" kind of certainty.

That also means software RAID for me, as opposed to a hardware solution...
But then again, I might have gotten that wrong ;-)

 

[dixonge]

From what I read - but I'm just a novice - I am tending towards ext2. That seems, in case of disaster, to be recoverable by everything (we have 2 xp laptops and a linux netbook).

Ext3 seems to be better, but ext3 uses journalling, which seems to mean that you can't spin down disks when idle.

Any format should be readable by your machines, but I'm talking about "taking out the disk and have it read by a different system" kind of certainty.

That also means software RAID for me, as opposed to a hardware solution...
But then again, I might have gotten that wrong ;-)

aha! ok, that helps a lot. I like the idea of software raid too, but will that work across drives of different sizes?

 

[dixonge]

The disk file format used on a NAS has nothing to do with the ability of networked devices to access it. That is determined by the network file system protocols supported by NAS and clients.

SMB/CIFS is supported by all NASes and NAS distros and most all networked products.

I would just use the default format for FreeNAS, which I believe is UFS.

I don't know why this was such a mental block in my head. Thanks!

 

[thiggins]

Ext3 seems to be better, but ext3 uses journalling, which seems to mean that you can't spin down disks when idle.

That's incorrect. Plenty of NASes use EXT3 and support drive idle spindown.

 

[thiggins]

aha! ok, that helps a lot. I like the idea of software raid too, but will that work across drives of different sizes?

The size of the RAID volume is determined by the smallest capacity disk in the array.

If you have one 500 GB drive and three 1 TB drives, the RAID array will treat them all as 500 GB drives.

 

[Steven]

That's incorrect. Plenty of NASes use EXT3 and support drive idle spindown.

Interesting... I had read in more than one place that this is an issue in self-built systems (the argument being that the disk remains busy). From your answer, it seems logical to deduct that there are OS's than can and can not do it. Time for some more research on that .

The size of the RAID volume is determined by the smallest capacity disk in the array.

If you have one 500 GB drive and three 1 TB drives, the RAID array will treat them all as 500 GB drives.

Yet another learning moment. I had an idea of using four drives in RAID 1+0. In that case, I presume the statement is true per mirrored couple?

Likewise (a presumption), with RAID 0+1, the size would then be the size of the smallest "pool".

It won't matter to me at the moment, as I plan to use new drives of the same size, but it is certainly good to know for future expansion... Thanks! Again, I must say

 

[thiggins]

You might try this. Or search Google for "RAID calculator".

 

[Steven]

Bookmarked Thanks for that great resource!