| 1 |
On 12/25/2012 12:07 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 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 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> For your usage, I think ext3 is the most suitable. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Do you have another fs in mind? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Really, no. ext3 has been fine. I didn't see any real advantage to |
| 15 |
> ext4 myself. Florian offers the removal argument but I've never |
| 16 |
> removed files from this database. It's just movies so the systems just |
| 17 |
> grows over time. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I suppose I wondered whether some other filesystem might get through |
| 20 |
> an fsck _much_ faster. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There's really no reason to use ext3 over ext4. Ext4 does have a faster |
| 24 |
fsck. |
Archives