Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 12/25/2012 12:07 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: >>> On Dec 25, 2012 10:44 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markkne...@gmail.com> 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. >> > There's really no reason to use ext3 over ext4. Ext4 does have a faster > fsck. > > >
I have noticed the fsck is fast here too, faster than reiserfs anyway. It seems ext4 is pretty fast with everything, at least in my eye. I also found that ext4 has a defrag tool. It rarely finds any fragments but at least it is available. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
