What filesystems do you use/prefer?

What filesystems do you use/prefer?

>Local drives
Btrfs
>External drives
EXT4
>Drives that require Windows backwards compatibility
NTFS, begrudgingly

Btrfs everywhere

How's ZFS?

Care to give us a rundown as to why you use said filesystems, OP?

...

>Btrfs
OpenSUSE default and it has lots of cool features, most of which I don't use
>EXT4
Mature, rock-solid stable, relatively easy to repair
>NTFS
Self explanatory

I like NT's architecture wholly and unironically. If only Microsoft made the shift from proprietary adware-peddling botnet fuckassery to open sores, I'd have a whole lot less guilt using their OS.

>system
btrfs
>storage
xfs

LMDE installer support btrfs when?

Who REISER here

Tell us why you like reiser

Unix File System.

I started using Reiserfs in 2002 because of its journaling support and small file efficiency. Technically, it's very similar to NTFS: B+ tree based with bitmap based space allocation.

Reiser4 is interesting, Not sure it's quite stable enough for full production, but it's faster than Reiserfs at tail packing, the allocate-on-flush thing is nice. It's recently had discard support added by Ivan Shapovalov, and Edward shiskin did some storage strategy work to improve its performance on SSDs

It kills your wife

Ext4 everything desu, anything else is a meme (apart from ZFS)

FS level encryption

>Local drives
Whatever is more native, so EXT4
>External drives
NTFS, I want to exchange files with normal people
I want to minimize my weirdness factor
I want to plug my drive on the TV and watch a movie

ZFS you can do simple snapshots and backups, it's pretty awesome except OpenZFS is kind of ridiculous with all the bullshit it includes. Ubuntu Server now has ZFS if anybody wants to try it on Ganooos Not Linnuux

OpenBSD is rumoured to be making their own stripped down OpenZFS just like they also remade smtp, bgp, ssh ect.

>/boot
ext2
>/
XFS
>/home
XFS

Bump
Nice infographic

>/dev/sda2 (boot)
ext2
>/dev/sda4 (root)
Btrfs

ext4

ZFS masterace

everything on /

zfs

ext4 for system
ntfs for storage

>/boot
ext2
>/
ext4

ideally: btrfs
usually: hfs+
sometimes: fat32

It really pisses me off that btrfs can't get its shit together. RAID6 is still fucking broken. So here I am stuck putting up with ZFS and its immutable vdevs.

Who the fuck even uses RAID6? Why don't you have a hardware card to do it for you?

windows: ntfs
/: ext4
/boot: ext2
/home: ext4
portage: reiser4 (works great with portage's gorillion of small files)

I use ntfs for external drives since I dual boot and windows is lame and will not read EXT4

anyway EXT2 /boot
EXT4 home

Why would you want hardware RAID in this day and age? Machines are fast enough that there's essentially no speed penalty for using software RAID anymore. If your hardware RAID controller dies or fucks up you can't just plug the disks into another computer and rebuild the array, you need another of that exact model of card, possibly with the same firmware revision. If you want to add more drives with software RAID you can use any controller - motherboard, addon, anything with a SATA port. With a hardware card you get the number of ports on the card and that's it - and many-ported cards are expensive. And you're using RAID to protect against drive problems. A component of your OS - mdadm or the filesystem - is better placed to notice when problems happen and inform you of them than the firmware on a card is.

Plus the layering violations that btrfs and ZFS get criticized for is why they can give us Nice Things that hardware RAID can't. A hardware RAID card, if it supports scrubbing at all, must do so with no knowledge of the filesystem. Every byte has to be read and verified, even if only 10% are actually in use. Ditto for resilvering.

I use ext4 for everything, is this wrong?

>ext2 on /boot

May I ask why?

>Local
NTFS or ext4
>NAS
ZFS

It's only written to when you upgrade the kernel or such, so journaling (the big thing that ext2 lacks) isn't needed. I believe ext3 and 4 also have much faster fsck times for large filesystems, but /boot isn't a large filesystem.

I forget if there are any actual roadblocks to an ext4 /boot (or if there used to be but no longer are), but the features of ext4 aren't really needed there.

EXT4.
Put simply, it functions.

I see, so you can get away with an ext2 /boot partition but there's also no particular reason to not use ext4. Thanks.

BTRFS + Wayland + Systemd + GNOME3 here

Feels good to be modern.

What about ext3? Has it been completely superseded by ext4? Is there no more reason to use ext3?

You sure also love chiclet keyboards, Windows 10, and no audio jack in your phone. Like all the kiddos who jump onto everything that is "new" without caring whether it's actually a better alternative or maybe worse for the user (but suiting some group(s) of interest).

ext4 ^has_journal superseded ext2 (even Android switched from yaffs to ext4 without journal)
ext4 with journal superseded ext3

>except OpenZFS is kind of ridiculous with all the bullshit it includes
like what?

Killer features.

CDDL. nuff said.

Daily reminder Hand Btrfs murdered his wife.

murderfs > all others

EXT4 for everything but flash drives used for work which I format FAT32 or exFAT, depending on the size of the files I need to store on it.

>Local drives
EXT4
>External drives
EXT4
>Drives that require Windows backwards compatibility
ExFAT/NTFS if it's someone else's computer.
EXT4 if it's mine.
>SD Cards and other flash storage
F2FS

What are the benefits of btfrs over XFS?

what is even the difference between ext4 and btrfs
where can i learn about these things

Daily reminder EXT4 and EXT3 fags that proper file deletion via shred or whatever is impossible because of the way it's setup. The file most likely wasn't deleted.

Snapshots?

Snapshots, CoW and less reliability.

XFS and BTRFS are not memes famalam

BTRFS = ZFS in terms of greatness

This is the only correct answer

xfs recently got cow.

Aren't you supposed to destroy the drives when decommissioning them anyways?

NTFS on my gaymen box, ext4 everywhere else. Playing with the idea of giving btrfs or reiserfs a go.

Isn't that true for most filesystems? I thought anything other than overwriting the physical location multiple times just deletes the files location and marks the sectors as free and are overwritten whenever you write to the drive again?

ext4 on an lvm. Ext4 for the stability and the available tools. Lvm adds snapshotting and easier partition management. Win win.

BTRFS for everything.
vfat for uefi

For compatibility with Windows I never need it, just use NFS.

*Windows: NTFS

*Thinkpad- vfat for EFI, JFS for / and
/home.

*NAS w/OpenMediaVault- ext4 for /, JFS for all data shares via samba and NFS.

* External drives- NTFS for Windows system images.

JFS works well for me so far, a shame that no one other than IBM uses it.

Which filesystem is the best to use on a SSD?

NFTS