Linux

1259 readers

94 users here now

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.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

115

What file systems are you using on your devices and why? (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted 3 months ago by Psyhackological@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I want to learn more about file systems from the practical point of view so I know what to expect, how to approach them and what experience positive or negative you had / have.

I found this wikipedia's comparison but I want your hands-on views.

For now my mental list is

NTFS - for some reason TVs on USB love these and also Windows + Linux can read and write this
Ext4 - solid fs with journaling but Linux specific
Btrfs - some modern fs with snapshot capability, Linux specific
xfs - servers really like these as they are performant, Linux specific
FAT32 - limited but recognizable everywhere
exFAT - like FAT32 but less recognizable and less limited

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thingsiplay 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I believe you and understand that Ext4 is not 100% fail proof. But my point is, its extremely rare that Ext4 would corrupt the filesystem or files, even in an event of power loss (depending on many factors off course). I use Linux as my main OS since 2008 and since then Ext4. And I do not have these problems. My point is, Ext4 is a good and reliable option for day to day usage on a desktop PC, without worrying to lose data.

Also BTRFS isn't stable for too long now and only a reliable option for a few years. Depending on the configuration, both filesystems can be a safe option to use. I agree that BTRFS has some benefits, including extended security over the data. I also plan on using it in the future. My only concern is, how you frame it and tell people how fragile Ext4 is, while it is not. Its a safe and good option for everyone, without the need for additional tools and special care like its needed with BTRFS.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ext4 is a little fragile in my experience. It can get corrupted quickly when things go wrong. To be fair most hardware isn't going to cause an issue and I have only had a issue a very small amount. However, when there is an issue fsck tends to fail as it has no way to check data integrity. The result is a completely broken system filled with corruption.

Btrfs and ZFS are superior as they check the data as it goes across. (Especially ZFS) That isn't to say ext4 is bad as I just find it is hard to recover data from if things go very south. The benefit of ext4 is that is very simple. It doesn't have support for subvolumes, datasets or anything like that but it does just work.