Just a simple question : Which file system do you recommend for Linux? Ext4…?

EDIT : Thanks to everyone who commented, I think I will try btrfs on my root partition and keep ext4 for my home directory 😃

  • RustyNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know what’s the brand neW meta pick, but at least BTRFS over Ext4. BTRFS is just more stable and less corruptable than Ext4. Heck, fedora changed to it as default

    • 8osm3rka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To be fair, Fedora switching to something as default isn’t a good sign that you should start using it. I do agree, though, btrfs has come far enough to be a default choice for most people.

  • KindaABigDyl@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ext4 is, afaik, the fastest as it’s the most understood

    Btrfs has compression and you can make snapshots to roll back to if something goes wrong (not necessary on immutable distros or NixOS tho)

    There are many other options, but I’ve only ever had a need for those two

  • muhyb@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally use ext4 everywhere but it is recommend to have BTRFS for your OS partition if you take snapshots often.

    • kixik@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been very happy with btrfs. Ext4 is basically rock solid, so you can’t really go wrong with it, but btrfs has some nice features that ext4 doesn’t have, like snapshots. And it’s fast. I have an extremely cheap SSD that’s too slow to run anything with ext4, but actually usable with btrfs.

    • AProfessional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      btrfs is objectively slower than ext4. It is CoW and maintains more complex metadata.

      Only situations it wins is when lots of copies are made at once. Not a super common workflow compared to writes imo.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone who ran BTRFS for years, I’m personally switching back to EXT4. Yes, the compression and other features are nice, but when things go wrong and you have to do a recovery, it’s not worth the complexity

    • Scribbd@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also taking f2fs for a spin.

      As far as I have experienced (I didn’t measure this): don’t use that partition for container layers. It might just be my system, but f2fs has slowed my container engine down a bit.

      • Samsy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I excactly doing this. I run coreOS with f2fs and it runs really fast. No issues so far.

      • Samsy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        For interoperability, yes. But with flash devices I mean ssd and nvme.

  • kixik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    How about bcachefs. I’m waiting for it to support swapfiles, which seems to be in the TODO list, but so far doesn’t work. If you use swap partition[s], or prefer not to have swap at all (I never fell for this, and besides swap is required for hibernation if that’s a thing for you), then bcachefs is ready for you. It’s already part of linux since 6.7, and on Artix, current linux is 6.8.9…

    To me is the FS to use. I’m still on luks + ext4 (no LVM) and do entire home backups with plain rsync to an external device. I’d have to learn new stuff, since ext4 is really basic and easy to configure if in need, but I think bcachefs is worth it, and as mentioned, just waiting for it to support swapfiles, :)

    • Kajika@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for sharing this. I didn’t know this FS yet. It seems new and have some nice goals. I always have a grudge against zfs/btrfs because of the resource usage/performance.

      I’ll keep an eye on this. I’d love to find some benchmarks.

  • qui@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I prefer using ext4 for stability. But if stability doesn’t matter to you, you should use BTRFS.

  • HarriPotero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    btrfs every day of the week. The only scenario where I’d even consider something else is for databases that would suffer from CoW.

    I’ve been running it on my home server since 2010. The same array has grown from 6x2TB to 6x4TB, one disk at a time as they’ve failed. Currently sitting at 2x18TB+1x4TB. No data loss even though many drives have failed.

  • verdigris@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ext4 for most home users, because it’s simple and intuitive. Btrfs for anyone who has important data or wants to geek out about file systems. It’s got some really cool features, but to actually use most of them you’ll have to do some learning.

  • nialv7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.