Which one is the current industry standard? BTRFS or ZFS? Is btrfs rust of fs? Everyone seems to recommend it, but there's little usage
>>108115485That image is dumb.Setting that aside, both are fine, but my personal experience I've never worked for a company that used btfs and only know people at one company where btrfs is heavily used: Meta. It's been some years since I've asked, but I assume they still use it as it seemed like a pretty heavy use? I have worked for a few companies using ZFS. I know people who work at places that currently use ZFS in their infra. In conversations, most people I have spoken with treat ZFS as the go-to default.But ultimately both are fine if you know what you're doing, but if you personally have the ability to choose, I would stick to ZFS unless you have a strong reason not to.
so why would i want to switch from the default in linux mint? i forgot what it's called... it has a number at the end of it
>>108115485ZFS is better. BTRFS has no use case that ZFS doesn't handle better, more gracefully, or more reliably.
>>108115547Yeah so the adoption is as low as I thought.>>108115548>>108115564The thread is about the current trend and best practices.
>>108115548You probably have ext4. If you don't have multiple drives (such as in a laptop), you probably don't get much benefit from either ZFS or btrfs.Either one can be a good idea on a desktop if you have multiple drives, but if you're not interested in learning the various CLI tools for either one, you won't get the full benefit there either.
>>108115564>>108115585ZFS now has vdev expansion, so they're basically identical in features. I think ZFS remote backup capability for encrypted volumes is still superior? There are minor differences, but that's the only one I can think of that even matters?
>>108115548ext4, which is perfectly fine for desktop use.Brtfs is good if you have a decent drive that can handle CoW and snapshots, but it and ZFS are just better for multiple drives or servers.
