>hdd steal 10% of your disk space with "tib" and "gib" meme units
>ext4 steals another 5% of your disk space for "reserves"
NTFS is better than this crap.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>hdd steal 10% of your disk space with "tib" and "gib" meme units >ext4 steals another 5% of your disk space for "reserves" NTFS is better than this ...
bad bait, however, since I know morons will respond to this this is now a bcachefs thread.
that's the default behavior for this garbage filesystem, why?
Don't care or know what you're talking about because any sane person is using bcachefs or xfs on desktop (or zfs in non desktop environments where stability is required)
Maybe if you used a filesystem with COW, zstd compression, and deduplication you wouldn't have this problem.
it's so if you run out of space, important services can keep working, giving you a chance to fix things without the system falling flat
the reserved space permits only root to write to it, so you can think of it instead as a soft 95%-limit on non-root software
you can change or remove it, but there should be no reason to, in general you don't want to completely fill any filesystem, since as you approach 100%, fragmentation inevitably shoots up
>important services can keep working
>but your shitty user stuff can fall in a heap heh sux2bu
And freetards defend this?
if you turn this off and you run out of space, then your whole machine will crash and burn, and it might not even be able to boot properly until you fix it
so yea, i defend this
I was about to shoot back
>what is a ram disk
Like Windows does when it gets itself into this particular pickle - until I remembered how brain-damaged UNIX VMMs are, and it's likely to crash harder and faster.
What's the advantage of bcachefs over dm-cache+LVM+XFS?
bcachefs is different than bcache.
I use gnu/linux
If your post is just overflowing with bait, it's too obvious. Delete the thread and try again.
>NTFS is better than this crap.
Yes because giving the disk permission to everything for everybody better.
Permissions on single user environment is a meme and you know this. Windows is for single user
Then why does it use multiple users for running processes?
internal use, protect the user from themselves
consumer editions of windows don't let you run two consoles/sessions at the same time
So it isn't a single user environment by your own admission, then.
never assume you're talking to the same person twice
I've always been talking to (You).
>downsides of single user combined with downsides of multi user
fricking microsoft
OPs post made me look into it a bit further and I found these two links that solve my problems quite nicely:
>Change permissions
https://askubuntu.com/questions/1111542/cant-change-ownership-of-mounted-device
>Change ownership
https://askubuntu.com/questions/11840/how-do-i-use-chmod-on-an-ntfs-or-fat32-partition/956072#956072
Basically, instead of using commands to change permissions and ownership you have to change some stuff in fstab.
Umask for dealing with permissions and uid for dealing with ownership.
forgot pic
I fricked up the links, too. I need sleep.
>Change permissions
https://askubuntu.com/questions/223016/setting-permission-for-ntfs-partition
>Change ownership
https://askubuntu.com/questions/11840/how-do-i-use-chmod-on-an-ntfs-or-fat32-partition/956072#956072
That's an artefact of your shitty reverse-engineered driver and shittier 50 year-old hobby OS, which can't understand anything remotely as advanced as NT ACLs.
Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It's not about "protecting the user", it's a licensing thing, nothing more, as proven by RDPWrap.
>Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It's not about "protecting the user", it's a licensing thing, nothing more, as proven by RDPWrap.
you misunderstood me
not having multiple sessions isn't to protect the user, the internal use of multiple users is for user protection, things like "system" and "trusted user" are tools to prevent the user fricking things up (among other things)
Yes, I connected your comment about multiple users with multiple consoles. You're right about that.
The people who whine most about LocalSystem, TrustedInstaller, etc. are the ones who need it most in my experience.
i think we can agree on that
>we're being civil and even agreeing
Damn, now I have to call you a homosexual and insinuate I fricked your mom.
>50 year old OS
thats not macOS
Yeah it is. UNIX is 50 years old. macOS is a UNIX - they tell you at every opportunity.
>they tell you at every opportunity
because they faced a nine digit lawsuit for advertising it as being unix-certified which was in fact a lie. So they had to spend millions instead to make it real.
>>hdd steal 10% of your disk space with "tib" and "gib" meme units
Are you beyond moronic?
I don't understand why it's called ext4. It's ext1.7 at absolute best.
If NTFS was versioned like ext is, it'd have a number comparable with Firefox - and is completely backward compatible: you can mount an NTFS from NT 3.1 and use it immediately and without problems.
All that is moot if I have to use windows to get the best NTFS support. You might as well be making a thread about how mac has better UX.
Of course NTFS is better. Loonixtards will screech about "but muh <random other FS>" but there's a reason they keep using ext4: its the only one that doesn't blow up on a regular basis *coughbetarfscough*
>Installs ZFS
>compression adds an additional 30% space
>120% of marketed disk space
>speeds up your reads and writes
Same for btrfs. Compression lets you store 30% more data for free.
>using a beta filesystem
lel
>>using a beta filesystem
alpha and beta are reversed when discussing software. Have fun with data corruption and lack of compression on your 'alpha' filesystem. Maybe you can store images of your dick on ext4 without compression, but my dick is so big it won't fit unless it's compressed.
>my dick is so big it won't fit unless it's compressed.
just take a photo when it's not hard, natural compression
I use ext2 and I don't give a shit.
The idea makes sense on paper, but working in percentages is no longer a good idea when we have disks measured in terabytes.
Stoopids use ext4.
Btrfs better.
I have had the same Debian install since 2012 on a 120gb ssd and I use around 30-40gb.
>hdd steal (..) with (..) "gib" (..)
SHIEEET
>ext4
Get on with the times, grandpa.
Not my problem. The israelites dont want you to know this secret, but /proc/kcore has size of 127T. If you're running out of space, just use your files there. I'm currently running my system on a thumb drive and have like 20TB of torrents in kcore dir.
>hdd steal 10% of your disk space with "tib" and "gib" meme units
I laughed
df -B # df --block-size
The SIZE argument is an integer and optional unit (example: 10K is 10*1024). Units are K,M,G,T,P,E,Z,Y (powers of 1024)
or KB,MB,... (powers of 1000). Binary prefixes can be used, too: KiB=K, MiB=M, and so on.
you can turn off that but the filesystem bloat is a real problem