Just a simple question : Which file system do you recommend for Linux? Ext4…?

EDIT : Thanks to everyone who commented, I think I will try btrfs on my root partition and keep ext4 for my home directory 😃

  • Mereo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    In my opinion, it depends. If a distro has BTRFS configured to automatically take a snapshot when upgrading (like OpenSuse Tumbleweed), then BTRFS.

    If not, for a beginner, ext4 + timeshift to take snapshots of your system in case an upgrade goes wrong will be fine.

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    ext4 has been battle-tested for many years and is very stable. Doesn’t have the same fragmentation and data loss issues certain other filesystems like NTFS have.

  • Yozul@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Honestly, unless there’s some specific thing you’re looking for just use your distro’s default. If your distro doesn’t have a default I’d probably default to ext4. The way most people use their computers there’s really no noticeable advantage to any of the others, so there’s no reason not to stick with old reliable. If you like to fiddle with things just to see what they can do or have unusual requirements then btrfs or zfs could be worth looking into, but if you have to ask it probably doesn’t matter.

      • Mereo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I disagree. My partition is ext4, but Timeshift saved my ass when an upgrade went wrong. I just had to restore the system from a previous snapshot taken before the upgrade.

        • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Of course updates can break stuff. What I don’t understand is why would you intentionally go for a less stable FS that can break and corrupt all files? It’s especially bad on old machines with limited space where full backups are not possible

  • Josh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I always go LVM + BTRFS these days. I simply love the versatility.

    EDIT: DO NOT DO THIS LMAO, JUST USE BTRFS, I AM SO STUPID

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    As someone who ran BTRFS for years, I’m personally switching back to EXT4. Yes, the compression and other features are nice, but when things go wrong and you have to do a recovery, it’s not worth the complexity

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve found it much easier and way more reliable. If I pull out the power on ext4 it is likely to cause corruption and sometimes you can’t fix it.

      Btrfs is pretty much impossible to completely corrupt. I’ve had drives fail and I didn’t lose anything

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Lemme say this - While complex, I can vouch for recovering files on BTRFS. I can’t vouch for recovering files on ext4, because I never had to.

  • rotopenguin@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Btrfs. Just format as one big partition (besides that little EFI partition of course) and don’t worry about splitting up your disk into root and home. Put home on its own subvolume so that root can be rolled back separately from it. You can have automatic snapshots, low-overhead compression, deduplication, incremental backups. Any filesystem can fsck its own metadata, but btrfs is one of the few that also cares if your data is also intact.