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