Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
2 added 269 characters in body
source | link

if the data you intend to store on it is compressible, btrfs mounted with compress=zstd (or compress-force=zstd) would probbaly use significantly less disk space than ext*

  • this will make btrfs transparently compress your data before writing it to disk, and transparently decompress it when reading it back. also, ext4 pre-allocate all inodes at filesystem creation, btrfs creates them as needed, i guess that might save some space too.

if the data you intend to store on it is compressible, btrfs mounted with compress=zstd (or compress-force=zstd) would probbaly use significantly less disk space than ext*

if the data you intend to store on it is compressible, btrfs mounted with compress=zstd (or compress-force=zstd) would probbaly use significantly less disk space than ext*

  • this will make btrfs transparently compress your data before writing it to disk, and transparently decompress it when reading it back. also, ext4 pre-allocate all inodes at filesystem creation, btrfs creates them as needed, i guess that might save some space too.
1
source | link

if the data you intend to store on it is compressible, btrfs mounted with compress=zstd (or compress-force=zstd) would probbaly use significantly less disk space than ext*