Let's talk about file systems

I plan to reformat some disks and I'm interested in file systems different from ext4 and all info related what I found is very old...

From my superficial research looks like:
XFS = better I/O (probably good for BitTorrent)
BTRFS = more reliable cuz better data integrity, copy on write, etc. (Looks good for a backup disk or sd cards maybe?)

But there are a ton of threads, forum topics about them (all over 5-8 years old) with many doubts about its stability.
How are these file systems today? Does anyone here use anything other than ext4?
>inb4 ntfs, refs, fuse memes. I'm talking about real file systems

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_default_file_systems
zfsonlinux.org/
bits.debian.org/2016/05/what-does-it-mean-that-zfs-is-in-debian.html
wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Why not make your own filesystem?

I'm sorry, but what the fuck is wrong with you?! Is she nearly-naked or am I missing something?! She looks about 12!
>inb4 anime website
Kill yourself you deplorable scum. Lolis are an attempt to rationalise pedophilia.

>/r/eddit

Poor attempt at feeling relevant when you aren't.
I give you a 2/10.

Btrfs is fine as long as you don't try to use RAID 5/6/10.

can someone explain how that little girl doesn't fall while putting all her weight at the edge of the chair? japs cannot into physics

The chair is on a carpet and the loli is too weightless to have any effect on the chair.
There, i gave you as intellectual of an answer as the question you posed.

Has anyone tried F2FS?

What a waste of trips.

no difference for normal users.
i use bsd fs.
die weebs btw

but she is moving, that create more instability. Also being naked minimize traction against the chair.

She isn't moving. Clearly that's a png and not a gif you mongrel.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_default_file_systems

ext4, xfs, ufs1 seem like usual suspects.
if you're experimenting then what about zfs ?

Just FAT16 your shit up, senpai

I'm not interested in fuses, ZFS isn't a native linux file system.

> girl
I have news for you

You can have it native.

>zfsonlinux.org/
>Native ZFS on Linux
>Produced at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

I thought it was incompatible with the gpl or something like that.

Is that OpenZFS?

If btrfs is so good why don't distributions use it by default?

APFS is the best file system.

openpepe uses it for root

I think the problems were:
>ZFS using internal kernel interfaces.
>Distros then having a problem in how to distributed.

I don't think there was ever a problem with an end user using it on their systems however.

>bits.debian.org/2016/05/what-does-it-mean-that-zfs-is-in-debian.html
>We received legal advice from Software Freedom Law Center about the inclusion of libdvdcss and ZFS in Debian, which should unblock the situation in both cases and enable us to ship them in Debian

>wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS
>Currently, as of January 2015, it is native to Solaris, OpenSolaris, OpenIndiana, illumos, Joyent SmartOS, OmniOS, FreeBSD, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD systems, NetBSD, OSv and supported on Mac OS with MacZFS.

Aside from height, all anime girls look the same age, they're just drawn that way.
It doesn't even matter because it's a drawing.
Girls don't have eyes that take up half their face or mouths that magically appear on one side of the face when facing sideways.

>i'm going to avoid the point all together

You just gave more reasons as to why it's worse than regular prdophilia.

i dont see the point of something like btrfs being used on one disk

if you're on a single disk workstation just use ext4 or xfs if you need it

Support for snapshots and backups.

Though I guess you could just the device mapper or lvm if you wanted that level of precision with other filesystems.

>You just gave more reasons

Which ones?
I find it hard to take you seriously when you keep displaying that you're incapable of reasoning like an adult.

XFS have integrated auto-defragmentation, mah boi

i started using btrfs and snapper for snapshots

it's pretty great. i'm sharing subvolumes with containers and automatic backup that takes up minimal space and it's actually possible to boot the snapshots

Indeed that one looks really good for torrenting.

More like it avoids fragmentation to begin with. It’s a very good choice for high-bandwidth applications.

As far as BT goes, any modern filesystem will do (so anything that doesn’t have the 1980s design of indexing free space using bitmaps, like ext4 and NTFS do). XFS and btrfs have very cheap allocations (e.g. 16 terabytes in a few milliseconds), which is why the BitTorrent client can just allocate space in advance with no performance penalty, and why XFS does dynamic speculative preallocation. That means it automatically preallocates space for growing files. It is also smart enough to put “related” files into the same allocation group, such as when you’re dumping video frames or 3D renders, to maximize bandwidth on disk-based storage.

kek

I have, modern Android phones someone's use F2FS, I use it for my flash drives that are only use on Linux systems
It just werks
I use BTRFS as my main filesystem, specially on spinning rust devices and other slow drives, compression can improve performance

>tfw WinFS will never exist.

When will someone have the guts to do what M$ didn't? Make the perfect filesystem.

APFS > *

How do I preserve 100+ GB of documents and images each one smaller than 1GB for more than 10 years? Should I use a raid setup on 2 new hard drives using ZFS/BTRFS? should I do the same but on good SSDs? or should I use other file system?

whats the general consensus on killyourwifeFS?

No advantages and overall gay.

Your use case is dumping data from BT to a single HDD?

No really important difference between any of these. Basically, throw a dice or just use ext4.

No longer an interesting choice, the other FS' just are better.

I want my wife to live.

pifs masterrace

Redundancy and verification.

RAID6 or a replication on like 6+2 erasure code cloud storage that is scrubbed maybe bi-weekly or so is a good guess. Add par data (less frequently used for verification) so you can ALSO get secondary confirmation and a degree of repair capability on the data side.

And then another backup copy.

I'm heterosexual

Test and see. ZFS and btrfs are oddballs, covering fs and software RAID and partioning/logical volumes. For basic single disk usage, XFS is probably going to be the best performer, and very reliable. More than btrfs from the point of view that there are readily available told for recovering from it. Ext4 supports shrinking AND growing the fs, which I know xfs doesn't do, and I thought btrfs & zfs didn't either (but someone please correct me if I'm wrong). If you want built in snapshotting or the ability to do crazy redundancy with RAIDZ (go beyond RAID6!) ZFS. If you just want speed XFS. If you want everything to play nice with you, ext3 or ext4.

I'd rather talk about your picture OP, sauce?

100 GB is like 4 Blu-ray discs. 2 if they are dual-layer.

Just get a bunch of Blu-rays for redundancy, do some fancy par thing like said and you should be good.

PS: With all of this, you do have a good guarantee.

1. It's unlikely that 2 drives fail very quickly before you replace them. unless you don't fucking monitor them at all, it probably won't happen.

2. It's unlikely that you get any corruption of data or operator mistake that not only checks out as sane with the array / cloud (which it could if you, say, "fixed" it the wrong way and it ended up marked clean), but also with the PAR parity data.

3. If you notice and the primary copy is fucked regardless of you actually having multiple chances to restore it fully, it's really damn near impossible that your final backup is also fucked.

Just make it has similar properties as the main copy- it was verified some time not insanely long ago, it has parity data, and it's not just one non-redundant copy.

Look its filename
This is probably a good idea.
It's cheap and I remember to read somewhere that bd disk are very durable.

>not a doujin
lame but thanks

XFS is more reliable to BTRFS for single disk usage? I thought XFS is faster but BTRFS safer.

Yea, Blu-ray are pretty suitable.

Granted, in the old days there were CD and DVD that fell apart on their own over time, and some more that really lost data quickly if the sun shone on them.

They *probably* didn't fuck up BD in the same way, but I'd at least advise against just making it a single set of BD and letting them sit in cold storage without ever testing them for 10 years. If the disks are flawless, then maybe you still had the idea to, like, drill the wall on the other side where that box was. Or your wife threw dusty boxes away...

Basically, make multiple copies. Test them after 2 or 4 or so years (to have a chance to catch a partial failure of sorts). Yes, it'll hopefully turn out to be wasted effort, but you just don't easily know.

>Also being naked minimize traction against the chair.
Actually the opposite is true. Don't ask me how I know. Trust me.

Not same user, but which one is actually more reliable is almost impossible to tell, as far as I'm concerned.

XFS still has more steady throughput than BTRFS in my experience.

Ok anons, got some questions here.

First, is there any consensus on whether F2FS actually is good for a PC? So like if I had a laptop with an SSD in there, would it be best to partition things as F2FS?
Also, I've been thinking about JFS, as it's listed as an option on both Arch and Sup Forumsentoo. I've heard it's better for your CPU or something, but most of the info talking about that is from fuckin 2003. Also, I heard it's unstable.

>inb4 jewgle it

bcachefs

Friction of her butt against the chair keeps her in place.
Haven't you ever computered naked except for a pair of cozy stockings?

From the point of view that there are more tools for recovery and repair of xfa, if it needs it.

If you don't include that, there's no difference in reliability. Seriously, both are rock solid.

CD and DVD used organic dyes for the data layer. BD, I think, uses something inorganic/metallic for its data layer so it's a lot more resistant to bitrot. If you're really paranoid, you could just use something like M-Disc which is essentially using better versions of the standard BD data layer materials. They're still compatible with standard BD writers.

center of weight is clearly over the leg of the chair

>EXT4 Tried and tested.
Works unless the medium is failing. Bit of space overhead.

>XFS
Fast as fuck when layered on shit like Ceph or LVM.
Slight random I/O boost in some situations. Very slight.
Good on both HDDs and SSDs.

>BTRFS the tinkerer's advanced FS
Go nuts, compress your shit, checksums to identify damaged files, CoW can keep shit in supremely fine order, offline dedup, do unorthodox shit with some assurance of data integrity

>ZFS
>Recovery tools? What recovery tools? Is the filesystem stable or is it S T A B L E?
Oh and you also can't shink or remove vdevs.
And dedup will cost an arm and a leg.
No native fstab or mounting support but the volume manager is godly.

>F2FS
Want a removable flash device that functions like it damn well should?
Automatically minimizes writes.
Stalls a bit under high write I/O while it attempts to lessen the write amplification.
Pull your flash drive after shit transfers and feel safe that it's actually synced to the drive.
REALLY fast random I/O on SSDs.

Bcachefs

This one looks pretty new compared to the others.
I'm not sure if I want to give it a try.

It's the filesystem I'm most hopeful for so far. Better architecture than btrfs (and so should be much better for supporting more advanced filesystem features like tiered storage, object level raid, etc). Benchmarks well so far, development is moving reasonably quickly for a single-person project. It's surely not "production ready" yet, but I've tried it virtualized for fun.

*Most hopeful for as a new standard Linux filesystem suitable for file servers, like ZFS, but also stable and appropriate for normal workstation use.

>not using btrfs or zfs in raid10
Sucks to be you.

It works fine with raid10.
Raid10 is a stripped mirror.

I just tried this exact position and didn't fall so it's physically possible

Her com is over the chair leg. Are you blind?

>Also being naked minimize traction against the chair
Skin with moisture has more friction than normal fabric, even more if that a leather chair.

you lied to me, i was expecting something good

Maki is a cutie

You said we were the degenerates because one of our mods (someone who doesn't represent us at all) had CP.

But you're unironically posting naked children here.

Disgusting.

So much this, but I don't expect the OP to take that advice since it hasn't been mainlined yet.

>crossdressing shotas
ew

>wearing nothing
>crossdressing

>having a waifu
>"she is not real loser!"
>posting loli
>"stop posting CP, fag"

fucking normies, when they will learn.

Who is this semen demon

>shota
>
Programming socks = girl. It's basic math

>children
Where?

But I wear programming socks and I'm a boy

Who still reiserfs here?

Last time I heard, it got pretty much killed for shit unrelated to the FS itself.

I only use HFS, HFS+, NTFS and variations of FAT, why would you need another fyle system?

>NTFS
Oops we accidentally deleted all your indexes :^)

You can't have everything

...

...

I bet you weeb degenerates would lick off the stains of a chair if you knew a loli left them.

Of course I would.
I may be a virgin but I'm not a faggot.

See where all the semen and gleet drips from her filthy snizz.

>gleet
Had to google that

the only file system you need is redsea

Retard.

It's tagged as 1girl in danbooru.

The drawer of that pic is known to be keen on shota wearing female legwear

Stop talking out of you're ass

> not searching on the artist's personal page
LUL
I don't mean to shatter your illusions user, keep on believing that the girl in the pic is female

Kappa Keepo