| 1 |
Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/25/2012 12:07 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Dec 25, 2012 10:44 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> <SNIP> |
| 6 |
>>>> With the previous local drive I used ext3 and have had no problems. |
| 7 |
>>>> I'm just wondering if there's a better choice & why. |
| 8 |
>> <SNIP> |
| 9 |
>>> For your usage, I think ext3 is the most suitable. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Do you have another fs in mind? |
| 12 |
>> Really, no. ext3 has been fine. I didn't see any real advantage to |
| 13 |
>> ext4 myself. Florian offers the removal argument but I've never |
| 14 |
>> removed files from this database. It's just movies so the systems just |
| 15 |
>> grows over time. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> I suppose I wondered whether some other filesystem might get through |
| 18 |
>> an fsck _much_ faster. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> There's really no reason to use ext3 over ext4. Ext4 does have a faster |
| 21 |
> fsck. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I have noticed the fsck is fast here too, faster than reiserfs anyway. |
| 27 |
It seems ext4 is pretty fast with everything, at least in my eye. I |
| 28 |
also found that ext4 has a defrag tool. It rarely finds any fragments |
| 29 |
but at least it is available. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives