On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:55:58 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 14 sep 12, 15:20:26, Hendrik Boom wrote: >> >> Now currently my machine has two small (750G) disks that it stores the >> bulk of its files on, and one tiny (250G) IDE disk that it boots from. > > Tiny? That's almost as big as my entire storage (2 x 160 GiB).
Yeah. I still remember when that was a huge disk. I even remember the time that 5 megabytes was a big hard disk. I'm just trying to keep up with the times, without resorting to terms like a very very very very large disk :) > >> (1c) file and partition size limits among ext2, 3, and 4. (my6 ext3's >> were migrated from ext2, so they may share the limits of the original >> ext2fs) > > For partitions in the TiB size you will definitely want ext4 or xfs as > ext3 fsck times would be horrible. Which probably means building a new file system and copying all the files. Even if it's possible to upgrade in place, it would probably mean preserving the existing low-level structure, like 512-byte sectors instead of 4K sectors. Anybody have any input as to whether ext4 or xfs would offer better long- term reliability? > > Kind regards, > Andrei Thanks -- hendrik -- 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/k2vp4s$5pk$2...@ger.gmane.org