On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Dan <ganc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't know that the inodes would take so much space. > Ext4 would be a better option? > I chose Ext3 because it is older and it should be more stable > therefore better for a server. Moreover I am going to use ecryptfs on > top of that, and I do not know if ext4 works well with ecryptfs.
Both ext3 and ext4 pre-allocate inodes, which is why it takes so long to create really large partitions. If you want fast filesystem creation, use JFS or XFS instead. The subject of filesystems is a complex one, so unless you benchmark each for your particular purposes, you'll have to settle for some generalizations. ext4 is more efficient than ext3 because it uses extents, so ext4 is probably the better choice for most purposes except your boot partition. Ubuntu defaults to ext4 with ecryptfs-mounted home directories, so I'd consider it stable enough for most uses. You will certainly have fewer things to think about with any ext-based partition, because it's so widely supported. However, if you're building a large fileserver, I'd personally suggest XFS for its raw speed and ability to defragment mounted partitions. YMMV. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktims_utc9bcwe1mqsfoh_zdbc0ungfk00-qcm...@mail.gmail.com
