[mythtv-users] Hard disk performance

Douglas Peale Douglas_Peale at comcast.net
Thu Dec 2 21:51:40 UTC 2010

On 12/02/2010 12:32 PM, aaron wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 15:18, Craig Van Tassle <craig at codestorm.org> wrote:
>> Also with ext3, you will start to see slower access and read times as your
>> files get larger and your drive fills up. I found that with my Raid array,
>> and other systems using the same size of drives.
> I have been a big fan of XFS ever since SGI made the first public code
> drop way back. I was frustrated with the length of time it took for
> ext2 to recover after a system crash/hang, and the periodic forced
> fsck during bootup. For those reasons I skipped over ext3 entirely and
> haven't heard many good things about its performance.
> But recently I've tried ext4 and I am reasonably impressed with the
> performance. I installed Ubuntu 10.04 on my laptop and used XFS. I
> figured that Ubuntu had abandoned the "30 second bootup" that they
> were so proud of in the past... until I hosed my system and
> reinstalled and decided to try ext4.... and wow, the system boots
> really fast, and overall the performance does feel faster than with
> XFS (much to my amazement)
> Ext4 still has the very frustrating forced fsck every so often, though
> (I'm not sure what the default setting is... I think maybe every 20
> mounts?).
> (I was sold on moving everything to ext4 right up until the first time
> my Ubuntu system did its forced fsck ... not really something I want
> happening on a Myth box that wakes itself up right before recordings
> start...)
> aaron

My solution to this was to have Myth wake the computer 20 minutes early. Early enough that any fsck will be complete and the
system booted before the scheduled event.
This is also nice since I never have to wait for the fsck to complete, I can just skip it and it will happen at 3 AM when the
system wakes for the nightly backup.

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list