XFS. It fills the same role as ext4 but it's less likely to lose your data and that's probably the most important part of a file system. Not that ext4 is bad or anything, but XFS is good. The only downside to XFS is you can't shrink the filesystem size.
this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
122 points (96.9% liked)
Linux
55223 readers
1440 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by AlpΓ‘r-Etele MΓ©der, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
No love for bcachefs?
Chill. That thing just hit the mainline.
Thank you brave pioneers. I just felt confident to switch to btrfs last year.
Uff, somehow missed your post. See mine. That's the FS I'm hoping to use next. I'm waiting for it to support swapfile, or alternatively read from official sources they won't ever support it, :). But yes, that's the one I'm looking forward to use.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I use f2fs on ssd's and ext4 on hdd's
I don't see the need for snapshots, I backup externally
SSDs* HDDs*
f2fs does one of the weirdest things with compression by default: the files are compressed but they still take up the same amount of blocks as the uncompressed files. This can get you the slight performance boost of compressed files, but doesnβt actually save you space which is an odd choice. You can enable a flag in the kernel but it has other effects as well.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I always go LVM + BTRFS these days. I simply love the versatility.
EDIT: DO NOT DO THIS LMAO, JUST USE BTRFS, I AM SO STUPID
I'm curious, why do you use LVM with BTRFS and not just use BTRFS built in subvolumes?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well since so many people recommend btrfs because "it have never lost any data for me". I want to suggest OP to never use btrfs ever. Because it has lost my data, at least three separate times, the most recent time a week ago. And it's not because of a power loss or anything, it just corrupted my files for absolutely no reason at all.
Stay away from btrfs at all costs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've always used XFS on spinning drives and F2FS on SSDs. No issues, they're very solid
load more comments
(1 replies)
I like btrfs but only cause it got transparent compression. I don't need the extra disk space and it only helps a bit but I just think it's neat
If you're on spinning rust with a modern CPU, compression actually helps your read/write speeds quite a bit. It's faster for the CPU to compress/decompress then read/write less data because hard drives are so slow in comparison.
load more comments
(1 replies)
FS is for nubz, do these instead:
Read
dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/stdout
Write
dd if=/dev/stdin of=/dev/sda
BTRFS for the OS partitions, ext4 for /home, tmpfs for /tmp. I rarely need to use snapshots, but I do use a rolling release. It's one of those things you don't need until you really fucking NEED it. Tumbleweed support is great - I can roll back a bad update in about as long as it takes to reboot.
This is exactly how and what Im using.
Home and other ext4 are backed up one form or another on by NAS.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I used ext4 for yeeeeaaaarrssss but now I'm using LUKS+btrfs, stable, encrypted.