1 |
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Dec 25, 2012 10:44 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
<SNIP> |
5 |
>> With the previous local drive I used ext3 and have had no problems. |
6 |
>> I'm just wondering if there's a better choice & why. |
7 |
<SNIP> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> For your usage, I think ext3 is the most suitable. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Do you have another fs in mind? |
12 |
|
13 |
Really, no. ext3 has been fine. I didn't see any real advantage to |
14 |
ext4 myself. Florian offers the removal argument but I've never |
15 |
removed files from this database. It's just movies so the systems just |
16 |
grows over time. |
17 |
|
18 |
I suppose I wondered whether some other filesystem might get through |
19 |
an fsck _much_ faster. This machine gets shut down in the evening so |
20 |
fsck operations happen roughly once a month. At times I need to get up |
21 |
and running in the morning and get held up behind an fsck after so |
22 |
many days. |
23 |
|
24 |
Other than that I don't have any real issues, and presupposing that |
25 |
ext3 would be my final choice I put it on and started rsyncing the |
26 |
files, but if another answer is really better I have no problems with |
27 |
blowing that away and starting again. |
28 |
|
29 |
Thanks, |
30 |
Mark |