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 😃

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mldeleted by creator
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      2 years ago

      Upvoted. Not everyone wants to rely on backups and restore broken system every month like on BTRFS

      • Mereo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I disagree. My partition is ext4, but Timeshift saved my ass when an upgrade went wrong. I just had to restore the system from a previous snapshot taken before the upgrade.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            LVM creates “block devices” and is FS agnostic. You can install btrfs on an LVM volume if you wanted. Or any other FS for that matter.

            But since it doesn’t know anything about the FS it can be a bit more cumbersome to modify volumes (especially when shrinking).

      • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        But pulling the power on a btrfs drive at the wrong time results in you not even being able to mount it as read only. No snapshotting can help you there.

  • Mereo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    In my opinion, it depends. If a distro has BTRFS configured to automatically take a snapshot when upgrading (like OpenSuse Tumbleweed), then BTRFS.

    If not, for a beginner, ext4 + timeshift to take snapshots of your system in case an upgrade goes wrong will be fine.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Btrfs is slower than ext4, xfs, and f2fs in pretty much every metric. Noticeably slower app opening times is the reason I switched to F2FS for good.

    • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Mint doesn’t default to btrfs, but will use it if you so choose during install. And it integrates fantastically with Timeshift. I’ve set up daily and weekly snapshots and have peace of mind.

  • Yozul@beehaw.orgdeleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly, unless there’s some specific thing you’re looking for just use your distro’s default. If your distro doesn’t have a default I’d probably default to ext4. The way most people use their computers there’s really no noticeable advantage to any of the others, so there’s no reason not to stick with old reliable. If you like to fiddle with things just to see what they can do or have unusual requirements then btrfs or zfs could be worth looking into, but if you have to ask it probably doesn’t matter.

  • rotopenguin@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Btrfs. Just format as one big partition (besides that little EFI partition of course) and don’t worry about splitting up your disk into root and home. Put home on its own subvolume so that root can be rolled back separately from it. You can have automatic snapshots, low-overhead compression, deduplication, incremental backups. Any filesystem can fsck its own metadata, but btrfs is one of the few that also cares if your data is also intact.

    • blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It cares so much that when it goes wrong you can’t even mount the partitions as readonly to try get your data back. It will stubbornly hold on to it and refuse any access at all. Boy I am so glad it didn’t let me access a potentially corrupted byte somewhere!

  • HarriPotero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years 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.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Subvolumes are somewhat like a partition, but they don’t have fixed size. What they allow you to do is take snapshots. Snapshots are used to backup and restore the subvolume. They can be created instantly and don’t take up any space until something is changed.

        • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          If I’m trying to install Linux with BTRFS, and it doesn’t work, what are some of the most likely mistakes I’ve made?

          • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            What distro? Some installers will set everything up for you and others you have to setup subvolumes manually.

  • muhyb@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • qui@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • Liam Mayfair@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    Btrfs. It was the default filesystem already when I used Fedora on both my personal and work laptops. Not a single problem. It is true I don’t really make much use of most of its advanced features like snapshotting, CoW, etc., but I also didn’t notice any difference whatsoever in stability compared to ext4 so I’m pretty happy with it as my new default.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • Zoidberg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    I love zfs. Started using it for my data storage pool and now I have it on root as well. It has some rough edges but overall it is very stable and has amazing features.

    • You999@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      ZFS is amazing but i wish it’s support for flash was better. I’m not sure if ZFS will ever be able to fully utilize flash since ZFS was designed around spinning disks and the pitfalls they provide. Maybe at some point F2FS will catch on…

      • mholiv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I agree that’s why most of my systems run btrfs. (Maybe soon bcachefs).

        But XFS is in the same tier of “datedness” as EXT4, just with more performance. Some apps like ScyllaDB actually require XFS performance crazily enough.