I am saving jpeg images to my USB-HDD with raspistill. It saves an image every 2 seconds and this uses up 1GB in 15 minutes with the fat32 filesystem. I was wondering if the filesystem was ext2, would it save the jpeg images more efficiency(using the least amount of space)?

  • 1
    You could try lowering the block size. But you'd only save maybe 2KB per file. But with 2.2MB files that would result in less than a 0.1% reduction in space used. You're better of trying some different file format, like webp resulting in 25-34% filesize reduction. Or just buy a bigger disk.
    – Gerben
    Nov 30 '13 at 14:57

Although fat has all sorts of problems I don't think this is necessarily one of them. ext2 might offer some improvement, ext4 probably would, but your biggest improvement would be compression and archival. either something like zip or tar.gz or maybe since these are sequential images mpeg

  • I was going to use ext2 instead of etx4 because it won't have to do journaling which will cause overhead
    – 11chubby11
    Nov 30 '13 at 3:54
  • I agree that journaling is probably unnecessary and can be turned off, but ext4 has better large directory support.
    – hildred
    Nov 30 '13 at 3:57
  • 3
    Don't bother about compression. jpeg is already compressed with an efficient algorithm, you may save a few bytes by compressing the header, but it is not worth the trouble.
    – Milliways
    Nov 30 '13 at 4:14
  • 1
    @Milliways It can be tuned, and further compression is possible across Images If they are similar, like time lapse photos tend to be, which is why I mentioned mpeg.
    – hildred
    Nov 30 '13 at 4:17
  • 1
    You can save even more space by rendering the JPEGs into h264, because h264 uses the differential frame algorithms, that means it would mostly store the movement, if your camera is static. This could result in upto 8 times less space used than JPG's. You could do like a daily render using cron.
    – Piotr Kula
    Feb 28 '14 at 16:06

I don't think ext2 would be better than fat32 in this particular case - not in saving the same information in considerably smaller space.

  • Can you explain why ext2 would be better than fat32, please :)
    – Piotr Kula
    Apr 29 '14 at 11:34
  • In other cases? It's free and open, for one. ;)
    – Bex
    Apr 29 '14 at 12:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.