Name a better file system available in a consumer operating system

Name a better file system available in a consumer operating system.

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/zfs-end-to-end-data-integrity
dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/06/19/apfs-part1/
cnx-software.com/2013/01/15/f2fs-a-new-flash-file-system-for-mobile-devices-elce-2012/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

NTFS

ext4

Linux isn't a consumer operating system.

ext4

It is if you make it one

FAGS

ext2
ext4
UFS
ZFS
NTFS (actual support)
BTRFS
FAT16
FAT32
vFAT

NTFS is inferior in every way.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

Nope!

ext4 is inferior, there's no discussion.

How so?

What actually makes a file system better or worse than another one? I do understand the restrictions of certain files systems such as FAT, but when talking about
>NTFS
>APFS
>ext4
>ZFS

What are the differences I would have to take into consideration when deciding what file system is best (Let's say they are all available for every OS just for the sake of the argument). I only know the basics of file systems as you can see.

Retarded here, why are there different file systems? Isn't just a bunch of 1 and 0?

The only one that's superior is ZFS, everything else is shit compared to APFS.

But ZFS is not part of Linux, nor is part of any consumer operating system.

So, no!

is there any reasoning in this thread or is it just no to everything that i dont like

Nobody's here to teach you.

blogs.oracle.com/bonwick/zfs-end-to-end-data-integrity

ZFS knows your data is good. If you have zero physical redundancy (you can on a single disk with ZFS) and you lose files ZFS will even tell you which files were lost.

ZFS is more than a filesystem, it's a disk management system too.

I use ZFS on servers but it works great on (primarily quad-core) laptops too.

I wouldn't use ZFS on a Linux system (in combination with LUKS) with only two physical cores just because of the way I generally use systems.

Not copy on write.

There are no cheap snapshots.

No de-duplication.

No per-file encryption.

No built-in volume management.

Do you even lift?

The file system sorts out the headers and permissions for your files they also optimize the files location on the disk for speed. Better file systems are more optimized for speed and have better features.

ZFS is love, ZFS is life

ZFS requires ECC memory to work properly and have all that functionality.

APFS doesn't require, because it works with Apple's SSD controllers.

Also, ZFS is not part of Linux, and Linux is not a consumer operating system.

I am a consumer, I use FreeBSD with root on ZFS. Therefore, it is a consumer OS.

And just because some lawyers claim ZFS is incompatible with Linux, doesn't actually mean that it is. They don't know any more than you do, they just claim to.

No it doesn't. It's often enough been debunked by everyone including Matt Ahrens who made ZFS along with Jeff Bonwick.

TrueOS and GbostBSD are quite easy OSes for plebs and they come with ZFS.

Read dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2016/06/19/apfs-part1/ and weep.

FreeBSD is also easy, if you're not a fucking idiot.

RedSea, obviously.

bcachefs, ext4, raiserfs, btrfs in that order

Bro your opinions are pretty rushed.
Give that FS 3-5 years before you can decide if it's good.

Mandrake was, and RedHat still is to give two examples. Now, please get off of Sup Forums untill you actually learn something about technology.

NTFS can't handle single data bigger than 4gb if I remember correctly

wasn't involved in any terry blogs lately who dis chick? has he blown a load in physics girl showing her his new crip

that's fat32

ReFS

You are wrong.
t. Core2 2GB RAM w/ ZFS root.
Core install with GUI is 4GBs in size with lz4.

btrfs

Some distros like arch and Sup Forumsentoo give an option for JFS. Is that actually any good?

ext4 but only because it's mature
APFS is too new for me to trust and the complexity and feature list pretty much guarantees there's going to be a fatal error at some point. Anyone who remembers how ZFS started out will tell you the same.

You remember incorrectly.

>I am a consumer, I use FreeBSD with root on ZFS. Therefore, it is a consumer OS.
No, that doesn't work in that way.

that's possible. it was a thumb drive

>nobody mentioning MurderFS

What is Android, and what filesystem does it use?

You may or may not be aware of this but there's a whole lot of Android devices out there and ext4 is probably by far the most widely used filesystem today.

>better or worse
That's a pretty interesting question because it really depends on what you're doing.

XFS really is a whole lot better and more efficient if you're mainly storing a ton of very big files (say your BD-rip collection) on something like a 6 drive RAID6 array. If you're using more drives than that then ZFS makes more sense than any RAID level and XFS. I wouldn't use ext4 for this purpose. But for a root filesystem it's a pretty obvious choice.

Yes. JFS is awesome. Hasn't really been developed in a long time and it's not really that relevant anymore. Also, it doesn't recover very well after a power failure. But one thing it does have is the lowest CPU overhead of any filesystem out there. I used JFS back in the days of the Pentium II and it made a lot of sense back then for this reason.

ReFS volumes can only be created with Windws Server. It is useless for anything remotely consumer oriented.

Literally anything else that's newer than Fat32.

>lowest CPU overhead
I've heard this about JFS. If I were to ever get one of those 10 year old libreboot C2D machines, I might use that on them.

Not exactly. You used to be able to do it with Win 10 Pro too, but M$ is removing that feature in the next big update because the new Win 10 Pro for Workstations needs exclusive features to sell.

A bad thing with XFS is that you can't shrink it AT ALL. That sucks if you use LVM.
ext4 supports online grow (some limits apply) and offline shrink so it's a better choice for LVM.

Linux isn't an operating system at all faggot. It's a kernal

can i merge folder contents yet

ufs is best. fuck copy on write. fuck snapshots. fuck fs deduplication. fuck encryption. fuck bloat.

ZFS

Came here to congratulate you OP.
I saw the thread and though it's bait, but then I took a second to think about it and yes, you're right.
There are probably only a _few_ filesystems that are better, ZFS and BFS (not to be confused with the faggy BeOS shitsystem), but first one wasn't ever on the consumer market.

ext4

>you lose files ZFS will even tell you which files were lost.
Doesn't ext4 do that?

>I wouldn't use ZFS on a Linux system (in combination with LUKS) with only two physical cores just because of the way I generally use systems.

ZFS btfo for most people's use case

>ext2 but no ext3
>BTRFS
Enjoy your data corruption user

>ZFS is not part of Linux
Really? I thought

Linux with ext4 is the most used kernel and filesystem on the planet.

>kernal

>Linux with ext4 is the most used kernel and filesystem on the planet.
On embedded systems.
Not suitable for human use.

You can compile it into the kernel yourself or use a kernel module updated using something like dkms, but distro makers can't distribute it with Linux (the kernel) due to its licensing (CDDL) which is incompatible with the GPL.

Whether you like it or not, Android phones and tablets are the most used computers in the world today.

And if you use it correctly it's only mildly less convenient for most everyday tasks than using a laptop.

And servers
And smartphones (Android)

It's also pretty good for developer workstations.

Did all you fags forget about based XFS?

>bcachefs
An unfinished filesystem made because of some of the data loss bugs btrfs experienced. I wish the dev would have tried helping with with btrfs instead of begging for sheckels on patreon for his reinvention of the wheel that's never going to get anywhere.
>ext4
Can't go wrong with ext4.
>reiserfs
If you hate your wife or don't have one it's a pretty good choice. But really, it may be good but it's pretty much abandoned.
>btrfs
The best hope for the future we have, especially since oracle would rather contribute to it than try and relicense zfs.

>A bad thing with XFS is that you can't shrink it AT ALL. That sucks if you use LVM.
This has bitten me. I have 7tb across a couple disks in an LVM using XFS. If I ever want to switch to a different filesystem in the future I'll need more drives. It's not too bad though because next time I upgrade my storage I plan on mirroring (maybe btrfs raid 10 if it's stable) so I'll need to copy over data anyway.

>ufs is best. fuck copy on write. fuck snapshots. fuck fs deduplication. fuck encryption. fuck bloat.
You're silly user. Sure dedup and snapshots might not be needed for a flashdrive you just use to copy files but on your computer these are really good features to have.

I've never had any problems with ext4, I don't think anyone has for a long time.

Did you forget to read the thread? Also XFS is missing stuff like COW, snapshots and raid-like functionality.

6 months ago every compatible iThing was switched over to APFS with the iOS update.

bloat

f2fs

cnx-software.com/2013/01/15/f2fs-a-new-flash-file-system-for-mobile-devices-elce-2012/

HAMMER

soon: HAMMER2

ReFS is the best file system hands down.

FAT16

>Name a better file system

mactoddler doesn't know btrfs is literally "better file system" abbreviated

>t. millenial
BeOS was awesome for their time. Filesystem programming, for example, is teach with BeFS as example.

...

>I wouldn't use ZFS on a Linux system (in combination with LUKS) with only two physical cores just because of the way I generally use systems.
It's $CURRENT_YEAR and aes-ni is included in everything above an i3. You can do encryption at 1 GB/s on a single core. Any other overhead from zfs would be comparable to another filesystem. So I'm struggling to see what your logic is.

exFAT

Really I think the one interesting feature that ReiserFS had which other filesystems don't have is tail packing.

Basically, it keeps track of the slack space "holes" in the unused ends of allocation units, and you can tell it to take files that you want to keep around, but don't need to access very often, and chop them into pieces, stashing them in these "holes" of unused space all over the filesystem.

When you need to access that file, it finds all of the parts in these "holes" and reassembles it.

Kind of like what he did to his wife.

Ironic. Literary neo-Sup Forums millennial's* are the ones who believe BeOS was anything special. It was not, it was a failed OS, nothing intuitive that wasn't done before or done better, i.e. AmigaOS or MacOS.
>*you're probably a millennial too, unless you're a 50 year old grandpa, but neo-Sup Forums is mostly Gen Z and most people _unironically_ say they are "millennials"

>incompatible with the GPL.
Proprietary blobs too, still released with the kernel.

>source: my arse

You need a source for something that we all know and lived though? Oh wait, you didn't.

>my arse is a valid source of knowdelge

That isn't sparsing?

Pure garbage. created in 1993, stolen from IBM

No; sparsing is when you replace sets of zeros in a file with unmapped space. If the allocation unit is 4k, and there is a 4k block of zeros in a file, no backing store is allocated.

Tail packing is making use of the partially filled allocation block at the end of the file.

>it's Sup Forums!!!1
fuck off retard

ReFS really shines either when you have resiliency or tiering (SSD+HDD, for example). Then it'll do magic under the covers all in the name of performance.

But really, since OP mentioned consumer, almost any modern FS will be fine.

Also, this guy is correct that you need Workstation or Server.

Also ReFS doesn't support removable media and isn't really suited for small (

I'd unironically rather use fat32

Only 1 user gets it so far.
Step it up faggots, HAMMER is the file system to end all file systems

Listen, listen. Has anybody even read the documentation on this thing yet? My machine did the auto-upgrade and has been working fine. It's a shit-load more modern than HFS and it's still (like ZFS and ext) open for future revision.

Still gay that they were going to use ZFS and then decided not to, but I can understand it from a business scenario, Sun was going tits up right when they announced that.

LOL

Why the fuck is Windows still using a file system that can get fragmented? FUCK.

spbp

That's right. Linux is a kernel. The kernel used by the majority of smartphones.

>exFAT

is technically not a file system, but an extension

I hope you're fucking joking.

you need a source to know how shit beos was? com'on now