I like btrfs cause of transparent compression but I'm pretty sure other filesystems like ZFS have that too
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
87 points (91.4% liked)
Linux
47660 readers
1177 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 Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
ext4.
Never used arch; just slackware and then enterprise linux.
If you really care about high performance on an SSD, use f2fs. This filesystem was made for SSDs specifically. Though ext4 and xfs are also really solid and shouldn't be that much slower. But if you do care about squeezing out every bit out of performance, f2fs is definitely worth trying.
It's a bit more experimental, yet I've been daily driving it for maybe a year or so at this point and it never caused trouble once, even with cutting edge mount options.
For both my home server and desktop I use XFS for root and ZFS (in some variety of raid or mirror) for /home and data storage. Any time I've tried btrfs for root (such as default fedora), inevitably it poops the bed. At this point, I stay far away from btrfs.
For what? Client on a laptop or PC? Why not f2fs? On a server just trust good ol ext4 with some flash drive settings.
it would be for a PC and normal work/home use
My current setup is fedora for the last 6 months. I started a live session, installed f2fs and then run the installer with a combination of f2fs + encryption. And it runs flawlessly and faster than any setup before.
Hi all. Apologies to hijack this thread. Figured it should be OK since it's also on the topic of file systems.
Long story short, I need to reinstall Nobara OS and I plan to install Nobara on my smaller SSD drive with btrfs and set my /home folder to my larger nvme. I'm thinking of using ext4 for my /home and have snapshots of the main system stored on the nvme. Looking for a sanity check to see if this is OK or if I should be doing things differently. Thanks.
So you're going to make snapshots of the ext4 filesystem onto the BTRFS one?
On the contrary, my intention is to make snapshots of the OS (btrfs) and my idea is to store the snapshots on the /home nvme drive (ext4).
I don't know if that's the standard practice or if I'm over complicating things. My SSD is only 240Gb (I think) while my nvme is a 1Tb drive, thus the intention to store snapshots on the nvme. Maybe the 240Gb is sufficient for say a month's worth of snapshots plus the OS?
It's more important to backup your /home than /. /home is where you store your crucial files.
Yes, that's true. Then again, I'm mainly using my PC for gaming and most of what will be in /home will be game installs. I have my photos and music backups in a separate HDD.
I think at the end of the day, what I'm trying to achieve with the btrfs snapshots is to be able to roll back my OS in case a system update goes wrong, or I did something I shouldn't have. :p
No, that’s a very bad idea. BTRFS has deduplication, without that the snapshots would take up way to much space. Also it’s too many writes since ext4 doesn’t use cow and would have to do distinct writes for every snapshot.
The 240 gb are plenty for a root system without /home and years worth of snapshots on a btrfs volume, only the changes take up space so the amount of snapshots hardly matters.
For /home either ext4, xfs or btrfs is fine. Personally I only use a single btrfs volume and put certain folders in their own subvolumes so they can have different settings for snapshots(no snapshots for /home, tmp and cache folders).
Noted. Thanks for your clear response. I'll just keep it simple have the OS snapshots on the same partition.
oh I just read up on this last knight. Yes ext4 is old but it is used because it is still works quite well. btrfs, dis anyone say that as butfarts, can handle much larger partitions ext4 maxes out at a few tb while btfrs can get much larger. ZFS can handle a around a billion tb but it needs a lot more resources to to even start
ext4 maxes out at a few tb
Max filesystem size is 1 EiB = 1048576 TiB.
More than enough!
eh which ever value it is smaller then btfrs or zfs
FAT32
Great for USBs