| |||||||||||||
An f2fs teardownAn f2fs teardownPosted Oct 16, 2012 18:22 UTC (Tue) by tomstdenis (guest, #86984)In reply to: An f2fs teardown by cmccabe Parent article: An f2fs teardown
4TB max for a file is not a problem.
Let's look at your typical use case [e.g. cell phone]. Max download speeds are in the 5-50Mbit/sec range realistically. It'd take 2 days of straight downloading at 50Mbit/sec constantly to fill that up.
If that were an 720p quality video it'd play for 4+ days straight...
(Log in to post comments)
An f2fs teardown Posted Oct 17, 2012 18:13 UTC (Wed) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]
> 4TB max for a file is not a problem. [...] Max download speeds are in the 5-50Mbit/sec range realistically.
Famous last words.
2GB max for a file wasn't a problem in 1996 when they designed FAT 32, either. It would take over 5 days to fill that over a 33.6 kbaud modem in those days.
Now I can plug an HDMI-capable cellphone into a 1080p TV and stream multi-gigabyte Bluray rips over Wi-Fi. Yet I can't store them on the SD card because someone thought "it would never be a problem".
An f2fs teardown Posted Oct 28, 2012 17:20 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] This is interesting comment. Note that FAT32 was explicitly designed as stop-gap solution for Windows96 (and then retrofitted into Windows95OSR2 when Windows96 become first Windows97, then Windows98). Long-term solution was supposed to be Windows 2000 (and later Windows XP) and it worked like a charm. But then FAT32 was used for totally unrelated task (USB-sticks) and this is where it's limitation become problematic... and since Microsoft wants to monopolize this market, too instead of FAT32X we've gotten exFAT... which is, of course, not supported by many-many things because it's implementation is not free because exFAT is heavily patented. Moral? F2FS limitations are fine for what's it's designed for, but if we'll try to use it for some unrelated tasks... we may be in trouble.
An f2fs teardown Posted Oct 18, 2012 4:12 UTC (Thu) by cyanit (guest, #86671) [Link]
It is, how about a 5TB disk image/virtual disk on a virtualized server that has a RAID array of 10 512GB SSDs? (the SSDs would only cost around $6000)
Not to mention the fact that files can be sparse.
An f2fs teardown Posted Oct 18, 2012 14:23 UTC (Thu) by arnd (subscriber, #8866) [Link]
f2fs isn't really optimized for SSDs at all. The largest media today that it actually targets are USB sticks of maybe 128GB that are both slow and expensive. Rather than using a RAID of 40 USB sticks and f2fs, I would always recomment getting a bunch of SSDs and using btrfs on them.
|
|||||||||||||