Ummm... btrfsxisters??? Weren't we supposed to be the future n shit?
>performance is all that matterswell yes, that's why I use xfs and it corrupts data even faster, I simply don't care, but how does btrfs affect you personally?
>phoronix
>>103235506I never had data corruption with XFS. However, it uses memory in a sub-optimal way that can block the desktop for relatively long times. That's why I switched back to ext4.
>>103235485I really don't care if btrfs is even 10% slower than other thingsI'll keep using>ext4 for />btrfs for /home>btrfs for /dataI have 3 different drives all being SSD/ Partition can go die, Nix will re-create everything if something happens
>>103235485based. ext4 chads rise up. the age of butter is over. the age of extended is now
>>103236143ext4 for gaymes. as it supports casefold while btrfs does not.
ext5 when
>>103236335Canceled because they thought BTRFS was the future.
>>103235485did linus kick bcache out of kernel because he was fanboying over btrfs and is trying to sabotage everyones performance.
>>103235485Impressive.Lets see EXT2 score.
>>103235485NOOOOOOOOO EXT4 IS HECKING OUTDATED YOU NEED TO SWITCH TO BTR-ACK!
>>103235506i've literally never, ever, in my entire life even read about xfs corrupting data.
>>103235485just use ext4it worksits fastno need to customize your filesystem like you customize your hormone levels
Wait till you learn that ext3 is faster than ext4.
>>103236192haven't experienced any kind of stutter from my sata SSD running btrfs when playing vidya
QRD on the bcachefs faggot drama?
>>103238105Rust destroys another project
>>103235506I've been using the same XFS partition on my current Linux workstation for at least 4 years and suffered at least a dozen abrupt power cuts, including two el cheapo UPS failures.
you're supposed to disable CoW for databases
>>103235485>more complex filesystem takes longer to processWaow who could have guessed?>>103235506I have never seen corruption from ext4, apart from failing drives, power failure during data write without full journaling, or disabling journaling and then having a power failure during metadata write. Most advanced features in btrfs can be supplied by LVM if needed.
>>103235544What's wrong with phoronix? I swear I've seen them getting posted for an entire decade but I never see people complain about them
>>103235544Phoronix is good for tracking, but whomever only beliefs written articles instead of going for sources are dumbasses. Like most tech youtubers, and most people listens to these retards, who regurgitate what they underestond plus adding their ideologies and feelings.
>>103239723They acknowledge women as humans, not a lesser subspecies.
Things I want from a filesystem but which ext4 doesn't provide:>easy undelete feature>or better versioned roll back on the directory level, automatically delete old versions when space runs out>immutable files with data checksums that are checked during reads>per directory encryption as safe as luksDo btrfs or zfs offer these?
>>103239723The owner is transphobic.
>>103239823>easy undelete featureThat's what the trash can on the desktop is for, if you don't disable the feature. If you want it on the command line, alias rm to a script that moves the file to there.>per directory encryption as safe as luksExt4 has had this for some years. Google added it to mainline ext4 so they could have transparent device encryption and secure storage spaces on Android without fixed size containers. I've been using it, basically you use a utility that reads a key from a file, optionally decrypts it with a password you provide, and inserts it into the kernel. From then until you remove the key or reboot, files in the directory you associated it with and all subdirectories and files in it that are marked as encrypted, can be accessed. Without the key you see encrypted data if you look at the file names or contents.
>>103240010>That's what the trash can on the desktop is for, if you don't disable the feature. If you want it on the command line, alias rm to a script that moves the file to there.All kludges and assumes other programs also make use of it. What if some trashy program accidentally overwrites a file? Happens all the time.>Ext4 has had this for some years. I remember hearing about this. And you remind me why I was skeptic. It sounds like you still see a lot, like how many files there are, their sizes, creation and access dates...
>>103240068Yeah, I'd prefer if it encrypted the entire file entries and just keep enough visible to see that the space is occupied.
