New answers tagged

2

Ext4 wasn't designed for flash media. It can work, and it's a safe value due to the extremely wide usage it gets, but it isn't necessarily the best choice, especially on flash media that doesn't do wear leveling. UBIFS is specifically designed for raw NAND flash. It doesn't work on arbitrary block devices, it requires an underlying MTD storage device (as ...


4

You could safely use ext3 with noatime option: then only actual file writes would touch your flash device in write mode. The ext3fs journal is a good thing in case of embedded system that may get lack of power suddenly. I personally run this way a few Raspberry PI's equipped with simple SD memory cards for a couple of years (24/7, not backed up by UPS and ...


0

A small correction to the otherwise very detailed answer: The first number is the number of free non-zero blocks. (I.e. it does not count non-zero file blocks). As such, it is never larger than the number of free blocks. If you run zerofree (without -n) on a filesystem, then run it again (optionally with -n for dry-run) you will see that the first number ...


1

ext2 may be fine if the total size is small, otherwise fsck will take ages. But for large things you should dedicate a block device (LV) anyhow, not rely on file in filesystem containers. It's easy to lose such containers to both inner and outer filesystem corruption. If you don't actually write the files, and they can be compressed, squashfs may be another ...



Top 50 recent answers are included