General discussion


>2GB Filesystems is typically asking for trouble...

By c_gehring ·
...especially in the NTFS world. While MS has done an excellent job of making NTFS reliable and stable, disk corruption happens. It will eventually happen to any filesystem.

Every try running CHKDSK on a 2TB filesystem? How about one with 1 million files? Be prepared to have your data off-line for 8-12 hours (or longer on SATA) and pray you don't end up going to tape for some of it.

MS has taken a hint from the UNIX world with mount points. Smaller volumes brought together with mount points is typically a better way to go and all your data does not end up in one big basket.

Obviously, no one solution fits all and sometimes you just need 10 TB in one filesystem. If that is you, maybe NTFS is not your best choice of filesystem, but it will work.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

2 things

by Jaqui In reply to >2GB Filesystems is typic ...

what brought this on? did you recent get bitten in the butt by a large filesystem check?

second item, the Unix filesystem xfs works wonders for large filesystems with massive numbers of smaller files. It's designed for that use.
it also has a filesystem check utility, but it runs every time the system is rebooted. takes about 2 seconds to check a 500 GB filesystem with 768,931 files on it. [ files ranging in size from 4 kb to 7.8 GB ]

you may want to look into moving your file server to a unix or unix like system

Collapse -

Besides wondering what brought this on,

by CharlieSpencer In reply to >2GB Filesystems is typic ...

your Title says '2GB', but your text talks about '2TB'. Huge difference; which one is your point about? 2GB is asking from trouble because it's going to be too freaking small.

Related Discussions

Related Forums