btrfs is superior to ext4 purely on the basis that ext4 reserves 5%(!) of the drive for reasonsi wish you cunts had made this clearthat's like 13GB on a 256GB nvme
This feature exists to keep your computer bootable you ingrate.
tune2fs and set it lower then. It is there to mitigate fragmentation and to allow root some space if some user fills it up. ext4 is stable.
>>108898009Doesn't btrfs become unusable because of not having that 5% if you fill up your drive?
I'm using NTFS on Linux, fuck this nerd shit
>>108898009I use xfs with luggs
>>108898009>ext4 on ZFS (with native encryption) on LVM on LUKS
>>108898009>BrokenTyrantFileSystem
>>108898009Only 5%? Ideally it should be close to 8% for longevity and reliability reasons
>>108898009Ironically for small NVMs, ext4 > btrfs
whenever i see BTRFS i think of a wet fart
>>108898009So don't reserve it then?Tune2fs -m 0 /dev/sbxExt4 better in every way unless you need specific features of other formats
>>108898009bcachefs seems cool
>>108898710>bocchi the rock file system
>>108900321>fs so unstable Torvalds removed it from the kernelhow the fuck does one fail THIS miserably
>>108900538that wasn't about the filesystem though it was about the maintainer acting like an asshole
>>108898427>badblock stops you in your pathnot even kidding, it's hilarious how it's impossible to actually recover from this shit without mounting your drive in windows. made me swear off ntfs for good.i'd prefer to use exfat over this crap, at least linux has 1st class support for it now.
>>108900374kino
>>108900374Huh, wait, hold on. That's actually based.
>>108898009In an era where drives are multiple fucking terabytes, how can you NOT run a filesystem that accounts for and saves you from silent errors/corruption? Is anyone still running a 40GB spinning disk where you actually notice the slightly better performance of ext4?
>>108902369Windows NTFS doesn't require 5% or any % and I've never had any data corruption in decades.
>>108902543NTFS users enjoy their fragmented MFT.
>>108902543>doesn't require 5%How much space does btrfs save you via built-in compression, in comparison? If you actually have shit on your drive isn't it a net benefit?
>itt: no one has any fucking clue what they are talking about but they are exceptionally confident
>>108902659>everyone here is wrong but me>no, i will NOT elaboratewhy did you even fill out a captcha
>>108898009why would anyone choose ext4 over btrfs for a file storage server nas?
>>108902667Why bother interrupting the larping about slop space allocation and how ZFS works?
>>108902543>I've never hadYou've never noticed.
Hans Reiser did nothing wrong.
Btrfs for root because of snapshots.Ext4 for all other partitions and external drives.ExFAT for my Share partition for my Windows install.NTFS for my stupid-ass Windows 11 partition because of school and running on a VM is too laggy.It all works nicely. If you're using NTFS on Linux, you're a literal retard.
>>108898009ext4 is simply obsoletebtrfs works natively on linux, has good support on winblows and you can use it on macos through a linux vm. unless tou need zfs, btrfs is probably the best all-around pick from the modern filesystems. what else would you even use, ntfs? exfat? lol
>>108898122What if the disk isn't a boot disk?
>>108902543I had ntfs corrupt two 20tb ntfs drives in one double-hdd enclosure, then corrupt another fucking drive when I was restoring the files off the previous two drivesfuck ntfs with a rake
>>108898009I btfrs my xfs until I ntfs into your exfat mom
