What filesystem are your data on and why is it not BTRFS?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFS

>>62452059
>>62452123
Both are incomplete hacked together pieces of shit.

Real men use ZFS.

Ext4

>>62452922
>server grade filesystem
>on desktop grade hardware
Ishygddt

File: IMG_0270.jpg (81KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 700x525px

BTRFS more like buttfs LMFAOOOOOOOOO

>>62454346
Why shouldn't you?
I use ext4, as that's what I'm used to.

>>62452059
>BTRFS
More like BTFO

File: 1478298818628.png (493KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 600x602px

>>62452059
BRRAPFS

>>62454386
what is scrub of death

>>62452059
F A T T H I R T Y T W O
A
T

T
H
I
R
T
Y

T
W
O

>>62454413
http://jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-your-data/
According to this article, nothing that really needs to be worried about.

File: d0c.gif (846KB, 298x199px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 298x199px

>>62454464
>Can't have files larger than 4GB
Lmaoing at your life.

Who here /ntfs/?

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-15 at 10.08.26 PM.png (92KB, 1294x900px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1294x900px

>>62452059
Because CSVFS_ReFS is clearly superior. Your meme filesystem doesn't scale across servers.

>>62452922
neither does yours

NTFS. Nothing wrong with it, it gets a bad rap these days cause people try to do shit that use it half ass like. Will your data get fucked up? Yeah, if your server/desktop loses power unexpectedly or if there is a hardware failure. But there is ways to counter both. A UPS will solve the "power failure" issue, allow a safe shutdown if main power fails. The hardware issue can be fixed via RAID and using a separate offline backup system. Will you still lose data? Yes, but not much, depending on how often you run a backup job. Nothing will prevent this, NTFS/REFS/ZFS,etc, it is all tied to hardware, hardware can die, Data dies with it, your only fail safe is your backup. Backups are the real important thing. Keeping the backup offline when not in use will extend the life of it and eliminate power failure issues that may happen.

>>62454514
>fragmentation

>>62454514
>fragm

>>62454494
I though WinFS was vaporware??

>>62454514
>entation

>>62454474
http://louwrentius.com/please-use-zfs-with-ecc-memory.html
and this article says you're fucked

the whole point of ZFS is to assure data integrity, but it can only do this with eec memory.
sure, you can say that other filesystems are as susceptible to memory bit-flips, but at least they have data recovery mechanisms, while ZFS does not and you have to assume the whole pool is lost.

>>62452059
Btrfs has no real advantage over ext4 on single disk file system, and Btrfs still has terrible, data losing bugs with its multi-disk spanning filesystem features.

NTFS on Winders
Ext4 on Linux

Don't fix what ain't broken.

>>62454514
>raid
enjoy your data loss
nothing to guarantee you dont lose data, just if a disk fails
and by the time you notice on some files you then have to hope your backups go far enough back and waste your time finding the version that isn't fucked

>>62454691
data loss bugs are only on raid 5/6
also ext4 doesn't have as good compression options nor subvolume support. CoW alone is worth it even on single disk setups

>>62454602
it is, CSVFS_ReFS is different

The problem with BTRFS is that it's been around for over half a decade now and it still has a reputation for being an unstable mess.

No one is going to trust their data to it.

Because bcachefs is way better

>>62452059
ntfs
yolo

>>62452059
It is Btrfs

File: Capture.png (10KB, 536x579px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 536x579px

btrfsfag checking in

>>62454622
The first article is accurate. The chance that the exact same bit is going to be flipped twice is next to nothing.

>>62454493
>using a filesystem from the last century

File: Asian fit Goddess.webm (3MB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x640px

>>62454403
>Liking that disgusting pig of a woman
Kys and kill yourself

exFAT or nothing, baby.

XFS

>>62455986
Disgusting

>>62454897
jesus that shit is so fresh it's still green off the vine

after a few more years sure, once it's feature sets matures closer to btrfs but for now fuck that. Don't get me wrong, stability is more important than adding x or y feature but it's just too new for typical usage

>>62452059
Because a catastrophic hard disk failure won't save you no matter what file system you use.

>>62454494
>what is glusterfs

XFS

will move to bcachefs when its stable

>>62452059
NTFS, because it's completely cross-platform. Everything can read/write to NTFS. Windows, OS X, Linux.

Windows can't write to anything except NTFS and exFAT. And for some fucking retarded reason, there's no program that lets it write to better filesystems, it can only read.

>>62455997
>>62456492
XFS for data, especially video content which is 97% of the space usage of my NAS, and 99.9% of the actual accessing.

>>62452059
Btrfs is shit go away opensuse shill

Ext4 for muh games (some require it) and muh resizable partitions
Xfs or Zfs for large volumes and archiving
Ntfs for data you plan to loose
Exfat for thumb drives
Hfs+ for data you want to rot

>>62452059
I use ReiserFS.

>>62456699
>Ext4 for muh games (some require it)
>some require it
Oh?

>>62454622
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52x4PSxbjUg

>>62456635
>NTFS, because it's completely cross-platform.
lmao, tell that to many devices that write only to FAT

I will soon install GNU/Linux on my laptop, convince me on what filesystem to use.

>>62452059

Because it makes me think of BuTteRFaCE

>actually using brokenfs to store your data
>not patrician ZFS

nigga pls

root@ares  zpool list media                                                                    
NAME   SIZE  ALLOC   FREE  EXPANDSZ   FRAG    CAP  DEDUP  HEALTH  ALTROOT
media  8.12T  6.35T  1.78T         -    21%    78%  1.00x  ONLINE  /mnt

>>62454514
>Doing extra work because your filesystem is shit.

Wait i thought ext4 was the best for everything... Was i wrong?

>>62452059
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.4_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.4_Release_Notes-Deprecated_Functionality.html

"Red Hat will not be moving Btrfs to a fully supported feature and it will be removed in a future major release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux."

If EXT4 is enough for Google, it is certainly enough for me.

>>62457663
If Red Hat dropping support for a filesystem, even as a non-default option, doesn't convince you to drop Btrfs, I don't know what will. Even if the reasoning is that they are porting key features to xfs or moving towards development of their own new filesystem, I still wouldn't want to use btrfs as for something as critical as a filesystem

>>62454371
butterface, rather

>>62454346
I use BTRFS myself, mostly because I prefer a native CoW solution, but in modern terms, for a personal desktop scenario, ZFS isn't nearly as resource intensive as one should expect.

>>62457663
Don't care what gnome 3 tards wants to remove

>>62452059
ntfs
because windows doesn't support anything that isn't fat or ntfs

>>62457506
ext4 is a good just werks FS, most stuff discussed here are special scenario things with features to decrease the already low chance of corruption even more.

>>62452059
ZFS or GTFO

>>62452059
# / was on /dev/sda6 during installation
UUID=065ea5a6-4fce-4c9f-80ef-83f983cd0f36 / ext4 errors=remount-ro 0 1
# /boot was on /dev/sda1 during installation
UUID=3b50c7c8-3798-40a0-bee7-a46a979126aa /boot ext4 defaults 0 2
# swap was on /dev/sda5 during installation
UUID=57a1d7e4-69dd-4a89-a8fb-9f2aa6585281 none swap sw 0 0
/dev/md0 /storage ext4 noatime,rw 0 0

>>62452059
>btrfs
fucked up my data before
ext4 and xfs just work

>>62452059
>btrfs
i value my data thanks
>>62452922
yours is an even worse one

>>62454725
Nope, I lost some data on non raid btrfs 4.4

>>62457663
>Red Hat
WTF? I love BTRFS now.

>>62456829
Me too. Mostly because I originally set up my rig in 2002 and it's been fine so far. I've been writing a repacker/defragger for it, but not usable just yet.

I've been following the development of reiser4, and I think it's pretty well cooked overall. Unfortunate it didn't get the testing due to him pwning his bitch.

>>62461517
give praise to your hero
>>62459177

>>62461778
Quite.

Still, in recent years Reiser4 has had mirroring, striping and discard support added in. Iirc xattr support is coming quite soon. I think it deserves to be evaluated alongside btrfs and zfs..

>>62452922
Amen. Weekly patrol srubs to prevent bitrot.

>>62459297
Idiot.

>>62459367
you're a fucking retard then. If you lost data on btrfs using a single disk you more than likely would have on any filesystem, your drive is shit or you're a retard. The difference is btrfs noticed you lost data instead of assuming it's correct

>>62463739
>kernel forcefully remounting the partition read-only because the btrfs shit itself is somehow a hardware problem