And what's the point of all those other file types? Are the other file types for servers?
>>108349140ext4
if you're on rolling release distro (arch,cachyos) you want btrfs.if you're on long release distro (ubuntu, mint, etc) you want ext4.btrfs is bleeding edge so its faster but more bugs. ext4 is older tried and true but doesn't get modern benefits.
>>108349161this chart is useless its like comparing tflops.
>>108349140if you want stability, just regular default ext4
>>108349140Btrfs. Also this chart is dogshit. You should either use UDF or ExFAT if you care about sharing an FS.
>>108349140When NTFSplus comes out, you won't need any of the other file systems.
>>108349140ext4don't bother with the rest unless you have a legitimate reason tono, wanting to see your files from windows is not reasonable
>>108349140NTFS
>>108349167>btrfs is bleeding edge so its faster?
>>108349140NTR
>>108349140>desktopbtrfs
>>108349161What makes ext4 better than btrfs? Any downsides?
Thanks, but I'm sticking with Btrfs. Ext4 is so limited and outdated and is missing so many basic features.
>>108349140Zfs on root, windows and macos has a zfs driver too.
>>108349671Faster. That's it. Btrfs is just better feature wise.
>>108349150/thread
>>108349671Faster with decades of security and bugs patches. To mitigate the features of snapshots in Btrfs you can use standalone software for that in EXT4 but you cannot get the fast and rock solid stable EXT4 in Btrfs with standalone software.
>>108350189You can't replicate snapshots in ext4. It is simply not possible in race-free way. Creating a snapshot is atomic in Btrfs. Hell I don't even think ext4 supports reflinks still so it's doubly bad. At least with reflinks you can partially get file level atomic snapshotting.
>>108349671if you don't plan to make autistic ventures like constantly growing and shrinking volumes then ext4 and xfs are simply the best performing and most stable due to their lack of features. if you want things like snapshots and other unnecessary crapware then you can start exploring other filesystems
>>108349161>nodatacowsounds like something a data hoarder would say to a normie
>>108350948these snapshot tools have checksums the hell are you talking about
>>108351031>file changed while snapshottingOops.
>>108351046>things that never happened
>>108349140I use BTRFs, snapshots are neat. There there were definitely some quirks about it I had to get used to.I use plain ext4 for my big data drive.>>108349802Zfs looked pretty good too.
>>108351066Happened all the time back in 2017 when my work desktop backup program was literally just tar | got to the corporate file server. I'd run it at midnight but tar would still warn of files changing. Switched to Btrfs and would just snapshot then tar.gpg so I didn't need to change much but got rid of the file changed warnings.
>>108349671btrfs is really cool for failing and losing your data
>>108351085Cool story, bro. Been using btrfs for many years, and never had any such issue.
>>108349140if you have a decent machine raid-z
>>108349140Arch is something that WILL break, meaning you want Btrfs for the snapshots.>>108349167This except Btrfs isn't some bleeding edge thing anymore.
ZFS works on all systems I use so I have no reason not to use it.I don't want to have to reformat just to move between operating systems.
>>108349140casuals should stick with ext4.
>>108349140You mean filesystem? BTRFS is featureful and hard to beat.
>>108349671it's simpler and you don't have to ever think about it. btrfs is much more complex and you can't pretend that it doesn't exist somewhere underneath.
>>108349686/thread
>>108349852>>108350189>>108350991>>108351085>>108351085The problem with ext4 is that if your data gets corrupted, it will get corrupted and it will stay corrupted. Unlike in btrfs, it's impossible for your data to get corrupted the same way it gets corrupted like on ext4 file systems.
best one for wank material and kpop gg mvs?
>>108349140>no exfat on chartwhat the fuck is this bullshit. if you are formatting a flash drive for use across os' you use exfat.
>>108349140>arch is for "regular linux desktop users" now
>>108349140i assume image is not related, just put everything into txt files, don't need anything else, any binary file type contains creative distracting slop
>>108349140>In 2008, the principal developer of the ext3 and ext4 file systems, Theodore Ts'o, stated that although ext4 has improved features, it is not a major advance; it uses old technology and is a stop-gap. Ts'o said that Btrfs is the better direction because "it offers improvements in scalability, reliability, and ease of management".
>>108349140NTFS and FAT32 are all you'll ever need. Loonix trannies can seeth all they want but its true. Just works.
>>108351847My thinking was kinda backwards. I picked ZFS out of principle and am now trying to shoehorn it into all my systems/disks. No ragrets so far.
>>108354636and btrfs raid has been broken since at least 2008. it didn't mature like he expected.
>>108354947>Just works.Until one day you start to get repeatedly fucked with a BSOD, that you can't reproduce; and then "magically" fixing it with a reinstall.
>>108353011How's the overhead in btrfs? Snapshots can't be free.
