My WD Red Pro 16TB HDDs just arrived in the mail.
What filesystem should I format them with? Don't say zfs because I'm not putting them in any array (at least not until I get three more).
My WD Red Pro 16TB HDDs just arrived in the mail
Logan Gray
Other urls found in this thread:
Parker Green
ext4
Brandon Rogers
>journaling
Nicholas Nelson
btrfs.
Thomas Kelly
Why would you pick anything other than ext4?
Colton Morgan
>journaling
Charles Rogers
16 different 1TB partitions with 16 different formats.
Asher Smith
ntfs
Ryder Reyes
Hey I just got 16TB more storage this week too (2x WD Blacks)!
Ethan Thomas
What's the cheapest way to attach a bunch of shucked drives together into a RAID 6 array for an ever-expanding cold storage system?
Isaiah Lewis
What do you want to do with them?
Jaxson Rivera
I want to store my data on them.
Wyatt Campbell
If your thinking is this basic, then use whatever filesystem is default on your OS.
Zachary Bell
Why would you pick ext4 when the more performant xfs exists?
Luis Myers
For now, just storing backups and large media (videos, photos and more). I bought big drives because I want to start upgrading my media library to 4K Bluray.
In the future, I'm going to look at zfs pooling when I start working on my large projects and start valuing my data more. According to the TrueNAS documentation, you really shouldn't even think about zfs with large HDDs like this unless you're configuring RAIDZ2, which means I'd have to buy three more drives at least (I currently have two).
Liam Bennett
why not jfs?
Camden Russell
NTFS
>b-but I use linuk
instlal windows 7
Elijah Watson
Honestly just go for ext4 at this point. At your scale the performance differences are negligible so you may as well go for the most stable.
Adrian Campbell
Why not xfs?
Sebastian Sullivan
ext4 is more stable and the benefits of xfs (larger partitions, larger filesizes, etc) are not really relevant in this case.
Jack Sanchez
ExFAT
Aaron Hill
>ext4 is more stable
Really? One of the main drawcards of xfs is that it's been around for so long and is still developed to this day. It's much older than ext4.
How is ext4 more stable exactly?
>and the benefits of xfs (larger partitions, larger filesizes, etc) are not really relevant in this case.
Isn't performance one of the main benefits of xfs?
>Space allocation is performed via extents with data structures stored in B+ trees, improving the overall performance of the file system, especially when handling large files. Delayed allocation assists in the prevention of file system fragmentation; online defragmentation is also supported.
>This architecture helps to optimize parallel I/O performance on systems with multiple processors and/or cores, as metadata updates can also be parallelized. The internal partitioning provided by allocation groups can be especially beneficial when the file system spans multiple physical devices, allowing optimal usage of throughput of the underlying storage components.
Lucas Green
FFS
Jacob Roberts
>How is ext4 stable
Its not but also xfs sucks too
Leo Anderson
Explain.