You are not logged in.
Hey all! I have a mediacentre PC running Arch with a 1GB drive for all of my media files.
It is about 85% full. It has many large and small video files, MP3s, photos etc but that's all. fsck.ext3 takes about 15 or more minutes to scan this drive. Is this normal for Ext3 drives?
I'm wondering if perhaps ext3 wasn't designed for very large (~10gb) files. It's definitely not the quantity of files on the drive as there are far less than the OS drive. Maybe it's just the overall size of the FS?
Are there better filesystems that are more efficient when dealing with this type of file layout? That won't take so long to run fsck?
Thanks a lot!
Offline
1 gb drive. Don't you mean 1tb
In my opinion, to be safe I would stick with ext3.
Archi686 User | Old Screenshots | Old .Configs
Vi veri universum vivus vici.
Offline
xfs was specially designed for that, I'm using it pretty succesfully in a music nas at my work.
Offline
In all benchmark tests I've read, XFS consistantly performs best with large files (ie, media files).
XFS is a mature and stable file system - I would definately choose it over ext3 personally.
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
Me too, xfs is amazing with large files! ext3 would be my second choice.
Offline
About XFS, are image files (>100KB) considered large too?
Offline