What linux filesystem does /g/ recommend? Is btrfs stable enough?

ext4
-stable
-just werks (TM)
-you can disable journaling for flash drives
-there are quite good ext4 readers from windows and most likely for other operating systems
-not a meme

>>58778708
RedSeaFS

-64bit clean
-simple to implement
-simple to maintain
-built in compression scheme

-The only FS capable of realizing God's will

why would I use anything else than ext4
"""redpill""" me on filesystems

>>58778708
ReFS

>>58778805
You wouldn't, unless you're a NEET with too much free time.

>>58778738
>>58778805

ext4 is just superior.
This one is pretty "old", but it shows why ext4 is superior.
Tl;dr ext4 is superior.
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/AFL%20filesystem%20fuzzing%2C%20Vault%202016.pdf

>>58778805
>>58778941
>>58778944
Ext4 is a stopgap. It was meant to be good enough until something better succeeded it.

>>58778708
>Is btrfs stable enough?
No.

Do you even know the uses/drawbacks of btrfs? If you don't, stick to ext4. Less things for you to fuck up.

>>58778962
So?

>>58778708
killyourgolddiggingwifeFS

>>58779027
So that's why you should want something else.

>>58779040
Everything is a stopgap because nothing is perfect, memelord

>>58779065
The difference is that Ext4 isn't just a stopgap, it's literally meant as one. Compared to other things where they're stopgaps for newer versions of the same thing.

>>58779079
Its still an extraordinarily pedantic argument

>>58779038

> On January 10, 2009, it was reported that Reiser was recovering after having been beaten by several prisoners who experienced data corruption with reiserfs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser


lol

>>58779038
Seconded. ReiserFS for the win!

>>58779096
Your mom is extraordinarily pedantic

File: Capture.png (55KB, 844x728px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 844x728px

>using anything else than ext4

enjoy your data corruption, kiddo

File: jabba.jpg (51KB, 658x364px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 658x364px

>>58779103
absolutely hilarious

>>58779079
Sure, but apparently making a stable cow filesystem is hard and most users don't use that anyway.

We have a lot of cool features in btrfs but it needs a decade or two without any errors, data loss or breakage between versions before I would trust it on my backup server.

XFS

>>58778799
>tfw all the CIA nigger cattle operating systems don't support it

I was seriously thinking of writing a readsea FUSE mod.

F2FS is the fastest. Ext4 is the second fastest. Btrfs is not fast or stable.

>>58779165
>XFS
This. And ext2 on /boot.

>>58779349
>ext2
>being this paranoid

http://github.com/philipl/pifs

EXT4 or XFS are generally considered the two main filesystems on linux. You can't really go wrong with either.

File: ZFS.jpg (15KB, 400x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x320px

There's only one right answer, anon.

>>58779505
He said Linux, not FreeBSD.

>>58779349
Any reason to use Ext2 over Ext4 without journaling? Isn't Ext4 just faster in general than either Ext2 or Ext3?

>can't pick a filesystem

Windows doesn't have this problem.

>>58779515
ZFS runs on more than just FreeBSD, why mention it specifically?

>>58779531
Windows has an even worse one: your only option is shit.

>>58779531
>Choice is a problem
Hmm.

>>58778708
>my root is btfs
>my home is ext4

Am I cringe or livin on the edge?

File: 1477002916396.jpg (233KB, 552x579px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 552x579px

Ext3
-never had corruption(unlike ext4)
-just werks

>>58779741
BTRFS is questionably stable so it makes sense not to use it on stuff you care about. You can replace your OS you can't really replace your personal files.

File: marlonbrandolaughing.jpg (100KB, 400x508px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 400x508px

>>58779103

>>58779741
Btrfs has worse performance than ext4.

>>58779753
>terrorism

>>58779741
>root btrfs
>home zfs
still "works" but all the useful btrfs features bugged out over time

Reiser4 is worth seriously considering. The whole murdered-wife thing happened before reiser4 got stable enough to include in the mainline kernel, however I've been using it, and it seems stable (not to mention fast as fuck).

It's also recently had TRIM support added, as well different IO strategies (for SSDs etc) and native mirroring..

The old FS, Reiser3 (or reiserfs) is unremarkable but still works fine. I'm still using one linux install I put together in 2001 with a reiserfs root on mirrored disks, and it seems fine.

>>58778805
You're not working in the general case, is the reason why.

Ext4 works well enough for small files, for huge files, for millions of files, for tiny drives and large ones, yada yada. It also has the most, and the most easy to use, tools for dealing with it.

XFS is fantastic at huge files and huge drives, but pretty mediocre at tiny ones, and the tooling around it isn't as complete. You use it over ext4 when you've got enough huge files that it matters.

>>58779906
i do not support murder

>>58778962
If we waited until we had the perfect filesystem, we wouldn't have even started using computers. You use it up until something better comes along.

Just like I did with your mom.

>>58779949
If that's your priority, then ok, but It deeply saddens me to see interesting tech like reiser4 fail for reasons that have nothing to do with its merits.

I've been meaning to implement xattr support for reiser4, but apparently I'm extremely lazy.

>>58778708
ext4 for desktops/most servers
zfs or btrfs for SAN/NAS
if you need anything else it's usually a special case

Anyone ever used JFS for anything? Supposedly JFS is a good filesystem for low spec and portable devices but I've literally never seen or heard of anything or anyone using it.

>>58780047
I used it about 10 years ago and never ran into any issues. It was a bit slower than Reiser and XFS, but not enough to bother me.

Is it still maintained?

>>58780047
I used it for many years. Great FS. Never got the coverage the others did.

File: 1461418603690.jpg (108KB, 499x488px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 499x488px

>>58779103
>it's actually on the wiki page

>>58778805

epen

>>58778708
ZFS
Zero maintenance: Leave it running for 3 years and come back to replace a single broke disk
Guaranteed stability, it is never put into practice if it cannot be stabilized unlike a few key BTRFS features
Compression & Dedup: Get a ratio of 1.75x compression on your current file system turning your actual 4TBs into a possible 7TBs

Really wonky to get the hang of because it works as both a LVM and a FS, has no front end, and limited OS/root support but as a non ext4 file system to actually put all your junk it's second to none.

File: 1430255410171.jpg (244KB, 1083x1595px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1083x1595px

>>58778708
Stick to ext4.
Only reason I ever used btrfs is for the snapshot feature, and I would only use it on the root partition where that function would make sense. Home partition and everything else is ext4.
The rest is all specific use only, or in the case of ZFS, too poorly supported in linux.

>>58779103
>>58779139
>>58779795
>>58780132

It was fake retards.

Was Hans being cucked?

>>58780073
I don't know. It looks like the last notable change was TRIM support which was added in 2012. Maybe dead?

>>58780237
lurk moar newfag

LVM2 + ext3 or ext4

HSF is the only way to go sorry

>>58778708
>ext2 - /boot - read only
>xfs or jfs - / - read only if possible
>xfs or jfs - /usr
>reiserfs - /var
>tmpfs - /tmp
>xfs - /home

/var, /tmp, and /home are the partitions that will receive the most routine writes. /home is also likely to be your largest partition on a desktop system. If you are using a ssd to boot from, you may want to consider a secondary hdd for these partions.

>>58778708
NTFS, it's stable as fuck, you can store many horsebytes of files

>>58778708
ext4

it just werks, why should i bother with anything else?

>>58779103
>actually and unironically getting a mail order bride

>>58779027
So, ntfs exists. End of fucking story. Do you want to be a cum guzzling bottom boi your entire goddam life or something? Get the fuck out of here before I tell you what I really think of you.

>>58779103
That's not funny. That's not one bit funny at all. Vandalizing Wikipedia is a heinous crime, and you should be very ashamed of yourself. Wikipedia is a serious asset to humanity and you can't just go around submitting dubious original research for the hell of it. Just because the cops laugh at us whenever we try to report you ruffians, doesn't mean it's any less of a crime. Just know this, we keep records of this type of horsing-off and someday there will be hell to pay. I will see you in prison for this, mark my words!

>>58781408
>>58781253
>suggesting the slowest filesystem in widespread use
idk man

There is no reason not to use ext4.

>>58779543
ZoL is shit though. So other than FreeBSD, your only real options are Solaris derivatives or NetBSD which even the NetBSD devs don't really recommend because of how unstable it is. Wait, don't tell me you use Mac server unironically. That's gay even by normal Apple standards.

After several months denying any involvement in his wife's disappearance, Hans finally led authorities to her body, so she could receive a proper encryption.

>>58780047
>low spec and portable devices
>JFS
lol no
JFS is an enterprise filesystem and is the primary filesystem of AIX
it's said to have a very balanced performance, but I wouldn't know since I've never used it

>>58781342
To be fair he married the translator that went on their date, not the mail order bride herself

>>58778944
It's meaningless. You should have backups regardless of the filesystem. If btrfs is losing to ext4 in some synthetical test it doesn't mean you shouldn't use btrfs. It's just as stable as ext4. I've been running btrfs for almost a year now and absolutely love it's features - snapshots, transparent compression, sub volumes, ssd optimization, and the speed - it's much faster than ext4 especially if you use full disk encryption.

BTW, btrfs is only like a year younger than ext4.

>>58779826
Bullshit. Look at the benchmarks first.

>>58781847
Stop casting assumptions you moron, that's twice without any reasoning whatsoever.

>>58781847
>Mac server
What's that? I know of OS X Server, is it something like that?