1 |
> What I have on there is videos. When I tried to compress some and test, |
2 |
> it was basically the same size. I guess videos don't compress to much? |
3 |
> |
4 |
|
5 |
No videos don't compress well at all, compressing video files is just a |
6 |
waste of cpu cycles :) |
7 |
|
8 |
> When I put this in, I'm going to redo the whole thing. Ages ago when I |
9 |
> was green all over and not just around the gills, I created a /data |
10 |
> directory and that is where I stored "stuff". My new plan, the new |
11 |
> drive will become /home and I will be putting things where they should |
12 |
> have been to begin with. I plan to reorganize this whole mess I created |
13 |
> ages ago. That video directory is HUGE tho. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> root@fireball / # du -shc /data/Videos/ |
16 |
> 703G /data/Videos/ |
17 |
> 703G total |
18 |
> root@fireball / # |
19 |
> |
20 |
> While I am at it. You should have a good answer for this one. What is |
21 |
> a good file system for this sort of thing? I been using ext4 but it |
22 |
> sure does use a lot of space for its overhead. As far as files go, most |
23 |
> will likely be videos. I do have other files but when compared to the |
24 |
> number of videos, they are close to nothing. The files system for the |
25 |
> current 1Tb, spread across two drives with LVM, uses about 75Gbs for the |
26 |
> file system thingy. That's a pretty good bit to me. I may lose more |
27 |
> than 200Gbs on this 3Tb drive. O_O |
28 |
|
29 |
I use XFS on my NAS-Box for the drives that only hold video files and I |
30 |
am pretty happy with it. The advantage of XFS is, that it is very fast |
31 |
when working with large files. For everything else I use ext4, pretty |
32 |
happy with that too. |