ext4.
Never used arch; just slackware and then enterprise linux.
ext4.
Never used arch; just slackware and then enterprise linux.
O use ext4 at home and in servers that are not SLES HANA DB ones.
On SLES HANA servers I use ext4 for everything but the database partitions, for which SAP and SUSE support and recommend XFS.
In a few occasions people left the non-db partitions as the default on SUSE install, btrfs, with default settings. That turned out to cause unnecessary disk and processor usage.
I would be ashamed of justifying btrfs on a server for the possibility of undoing "broken things". Maybe in a distro hopping, system tinkering, unstable release home computer, but not in a server. You don't play around in a server to "break things" that often. Linux (differently from Windows) servers don't break themselves at the software level. For hardware breakages, there's RAID, backups, and HA reduntant systems, because if it's a hardware issue btrfs isn't going to save you - even if you get back that corrupted file, you won't keep running in that hardware, nor trust that "this" was the only and last file it corrupted.
EDIT: somewhat offtopic: I never use LVM. Call me paranoid and old fashioned, but I really prefer knowing where my data is, whole.
Facebook was using btrfs for some usecases. Not sure what you mean by breaking things?
Most comments suggesting btrfs were justifying it for the possibility of rolling back to a previous state of files when something breaks (not a btrfs breakage, but mishaps on the system requiring an "undo").
Ah, I see. While that use may be a good plan for home server, doing that for production server seems like a bandaid solution to having a test server and controlling deployed changes very carefully.
Exactly. A waste of server resources, as a productions server is not tinkerable, and shouldn't "break".
Ext4 for general pupose linux. Zfs for bsd network drives
It depends, for a normal user? Ext4, maybe btrfs because in terms of stability is the best {but u lose some functions like the ability to make a swap file, wich today isn't really that useful, but u lose the ability to make one). Want something really fast fort large files? ZFS, but if u experience an energy loss it could be really catastrophic.
Ext in general is so good that even to this day android it's still using EXT2, 2!
You can make a swap file on btrfs.
First of all, thanks this r news for me. But I don't think is a good idea to use the swap file in btrfs.
It is supported since kernel 5.0
There are some limitations of the implementation in BTRFS and Linux swap subsystem:
filesystem - must be only single device
filesystem - must have only single data profile
subvolume - cannot be snapshotted if it contains any active swapfiles
swapfile - must be preallocated (i.e. no holes)
swapfile - must be NODATACOW (i.e. also NODATASUM, no compression)
With active swapfiles, the following whole-filesystem operations will skip swapfile extents or may fail:
balance - block groups with extents of any active swapfiles are skipped and reported, the rest will be processed normally
resize grow - unaffected
resize shrink - works as long as the extents of any active swapfiles are outside of the shrunk range
device add - if the new devices do not interfere with any already active swapfiles this operation will work, though no new swapfile can be activated afterwards
device delete - if the device has been added as above, it can be also deleted
device replace - ditto
Yes, there are some limitations to be aware of, with how it interacts with certain features. But EXT4 doesn't have any of those features at all. It doesn't have CoW, or balance, or multi-device, or snapshots.
If the filesystem, is single-device, and you have the swapfile on it's own nocow subvolume, preallocate the swapfile, and don't try to take snapshots of it, it should be fine.
oh I just read up on this last knight. Yes ext4 is old but it is used because it is still works quite well. btrfs, dis anyone say that as butfarts, can handle much larger partitions ext4 maxes out at a few tb while btfrs can get much larger. ZFS can handle a around a billion tb but it needs a lot more resources to to even start
ext4 maxes out at a few tb
Max filesystem size is 1 EiB = 1048576 TiB.
More than enough!
eh which ever value it is smaller then btfrs or zfs
Hi all. Apologies to hijack this thread. Figured it should be OK since it's also on the topic of file systems.
Long story short, I need to reinstall Nobara OS and I plan to install Nobara on my smaller SSD drive with btrfs and set my /home folder to my larger nvme. I'm thinking of using ext4 for my /home and have snapshots of the main system stored on the nvme. Looking for a sanity check to see if this is OK or if I should be doing things differently. Thanks.
For what? Client on a laptop or PC? Why not f2fs? On a server just trust good ol ext4 with some flash drive settings.
it would be for a PC and normal work/home use
My current setup is fedora for the last 6 months. I started a live session, installed f2fs and then run the installer with a combination of f2fs + encryption. And it runs flawlessly and faster than any setup before.
For both my home server and desktop I use XFS for root and ZFS (in some variety of raid or mirror) for /home and data storage. Any time I've tried btrfs for root (such as default fedora), inevitably it poops the bed. At this point, I stay far away from btrfs.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0