On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Todd A. Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Dan <[email protected]> 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. > 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. >
Why ext4 is not good for the boot partition? and Is there a big advantage of ext4 over ext3? ext3 should be able to manage without any problem a 2TB partition, right? Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
