>the year of our lord 2*10^3+24. >he still uses ext4

>the year of our lord 2*10^3+24
>he still uses ext4
Explain yourself

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what is the advantage over zfs

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've been using btrfs for I think half a decade. It's great

      License I suppose

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      easier rebalancing, more suitable for poor people like me with hdd of various size and quality.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it can do automatic mutt raid

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I was able to move all my data back to BTRFS by converting to RAID0 and then adding more drives and converting to RAID5

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, I use btrfs. No, I have no idea how it works/what is is. archinstall recommended it.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm on ext5 beta

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just works

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    used years ago
    broke my files

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would I use anything but NTFS

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Enjoy defragging your shit fragile FS

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm waiting to have problems with ext4 to switch, but it's been taking a while.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I am too dumb to use btrfs.
    Simple as.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I use BTRFS on my NAS with RAID 1 and I use ext4 on my single backup HDDs. Am I doing it right?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, a filesystem with send/receive support should be ubiquitous in backup usage.
      Cold data in such a scenario should have zstd-19 applied, it's cheap to reheat.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          copy-on-write send and receive is the spaceman to pluming on multiple filesystems' cowboy.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ext4 is fast but can break easily with few bad sectors

    btrfs is more reliable but slower, especially if you create many snapshot, docker can also take advantage of snapshots

    My only issue with btrfs is not having a clear disk usage indication

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      btrfs/zfs handles I/O pressure much better despite being "slower" than e.g. xfs, benchmarks don't show that

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >not using bcachefs

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bcachefs is not stable.
      i use OpenSUS + btrfs btw

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Super slow and unfinished. Though it may have been the case of cache SSD being slow, but when I was copying data back to BTRFS the average speed was 17Mb/s.
      It failed at watching an episode of a series.
      I'm back to BTRFS + BCACHE for now.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Made in my new Artix Install, no day-a-day benefits seen so far.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just werks.
    ext4 on root and zfs on data drives.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i prefer not to use "totally stable bro" for my data
    lvm snapshots do the job just as well

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This shit bricked my system after a month of use.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why is there a filesystem called buttfrickers

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't CoW filesystems suffer from awful free space fragmentation if used with files like VM images or torrents, or any large files which can have a bunch of random writes happening all throughout?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're expected to manually disable CoW on directories containing those types of files.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm new to all this, but is this why people say that CoW are great, but require more effort put into their usage or they become a hindrance?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, it's because you can only 80% of a disk normally then need to either eat a massive performance loss or "rebalance"/defragment.
          Any CoW fs above 95% usage is simply unusable.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      CoW fragmentation doesn't work like overwriting filesystems, any performace loss is already spent by the design.
      Btrfs is closer to a regular filesystem and will use 1GB buckets to "rebalance" blocks and ZFS is a block database that uses caching to alleviate performance issues.
      B-epsilon trees are allegedly outright fixing any performance issues with fragmentation and filesystems entirely.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fell for the butterfs meme
    >accidentally erase a btrfs and an ext4 drive during a windows install
    >fully recovered the ext4 drive, no data lost
    >butterfs drive is lost is lost forever.
    Frick this israeli glowBlack person scam

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >letting windows touch your hard drives directly
      You fricked up.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      erase a btrfs and an ext4 drive during a windows install
      You said it yourself, lmao

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Explain in detail.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Selected the wrong drives when installing windows, an though the installer was like calamares where you could redo and abort the formatting of the drive without losing any data. Big mistake.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This got nothing to do with btrfs or ext4, it's entirely Windows' fault.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why are you dual booting on your fricking server? which is where btrfs is used

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not gonna use beta tier at best software for my filesystem.
    >b-but
    I don't care, ZFS just works. Maybe your data is worthless, mine isn't.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Of course I'm using btrfs, with snapper, compression and deduplication

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't want to get my files destroyed.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    im using bcachefs on my server

    >kernel 6.7 is a time bomb upgrade to 6.8 now
    >replication is stable, erasure coding is not
    >compression is single-threaded so stick to zstd:1 or rebalance thread will be piss ass slow
    >ssd caching works very well
    >can decide filesystem options like foreground/background target or replication per folder, like make sure folder x will only live on ssds, disable replicas on temp download folders
    >is not block based and not fixed layout, so you can expand or remove drives, mixed drive sizes, no issues

    its quite a good "throw a bunch of drives on the server" filesystem

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's the drive set up? I had terrible performance with 4x 18Tb.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeh performance is ass without ssds to handle foreground writes and metadata.
        but performance was really ass in 6.7 either way, 6.8 fixed a lot.

        im running with okay performance with
        2x 2tb intel p3600
        8x mixed hdd, mostly 6tb

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm using UFS, works fine.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >my os so fragile it constantly needs backup

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >btrfs for /
    >xfs for other drives
    Am I doing it right?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. That's the OpenSUSE default.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    burden of proof is on you
    why should i use btrfs over ext4 when it served me well for the past 10 years?

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would I? If it works don't fix it

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >NTFS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *