Which file system do you recommend for Linux?
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 đ
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.
But you can also just use BTRFS without any fancy setup and not use its features, it will still be faster.
Mint doesnât default to btrfs, but will use it if you so choose during install. And it integrates fantastically with Timeshift. Iâve set up daily and weekly snapshots and have peace of mind.
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.
And it has repair tools that actually work and can make the filesystem usable again.
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.
It cares so much that when it goes wrong you can't even mount the partitions as readonly to try get your data back. It will stubbornly hold on to it and refuse any access at all. Boy I am so glad it didn't let me access a potentially corrupted byte somewhere!
I'm going to go against the flow here and say BTRFS. It's stable enough to the point of being a non consideration. You get full backups using a negligible amount of storage. Even using it on Windows is easier than using ext4 with the winbtrfs driver.
Be really careful with winbtrfs. It will corrupt your data and cause crashes. Also I feel bad for the dev as Windows users are very demanding
ext4 unless you need features offered by another FS.
Especially just getting into linux. Ext4 works well enough, when you learn enough to care about what it doesn't do well try something then
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
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
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.
Care to explain?
When booting into a live CD, mounting the various subpartitions is super annoying.
When your disk space hits full, things break uncontrollably because different programs don't have a consistent measurement of how much space is left.
When shrinking partitions, you can lose data if you shrink it too much. I'm not talking about forced overrides of any configs, I'm talking about things like KDE Partition Manager.
All of these things can be excused one way or another, but at the end of the day I just want a stable filesystem that doesn't lose my docs.
btrfs every day of the week. The only scenario where I'd even consider something else is for databases that would suffer from CoW.
I've been running it on my home server since 2010. The same array has grown from 6x2TB to 6x4TB, one disk at a time as they've failed. Currently sitting at 2x18TB+1x4TB. No data loss even though many drives have failed.
If you don't actually have an opinion, just go with the default, ext4 really is a very good file system, but if you want to have an opinion and not go with the default, zfs is truly a fantastic file system.
Btrfs is cool because it supports snapshots, if you don't plan on using these, just go with ext4
I don't use snapshots but i love the compression.
Not just snapshots. Also compression and CoW.
Umm correct if um wrong but cant you make a snapshot of ant file system
Sure, but btrfs has some built-in tools for this and makes it pretty easy
I personally use ext4 everywhere but it is recommend to have BTRFS for your OS partition if you take snapshots often.
I would recommend using btrfs on SSDs and ext4 on hard drives.
Ok but please explain subvolumes, the information has failed to latch onto my brain
Ext4 on hard drives? Btrfs would be better for both.
Ext4 for most home users, because it's simple and intuitive. Btrfs for anyone who has important data or wants to geek out about file systems. It's got some really cool features, but to actually use most of them you'll have to do some learning.
How about bcachefs. I'm waiting for it to support swapfiles, which seems to be in the TODO list, but so far doesn't work. If you use swap partition[s], or prefer not to have swap at all (I never fell for this, and besides swap is required for hibernation if that's a thing for you), then bcachefs is ready for you. It's already part of linux since 6.7, and on Artix, current linux is 6.8.9...
To me is the FS to use. I'm still on luks + ext4 (no LVM) and do entire home backups with plain rsync to an external device. I'd have to learn new stuff, since ext4 is really basic and easy to configure if in need, but I think bcachefs is worth it, and as mentioned, just waiting for it to support swapfiles, :)
Thank you for sharing this. I didn't know this FS yet. It seems new and have some nice goals. I always have a grudge against zfs/btrfs because of the resource usage/performance.
I'll keep an eye on this. I'd love to find some benchmarks.
Not yet, but bcachefs will be the future as the goals replicate most of OpenZFS while not having that licencing issue.
Btrfs. It was the default filesystem already when I used Fedora on both my personal and work laptops. Not a single problem. It is true I don't really make much use of most of its advanced features like snapshotting, CoW, etc., but I also didn't notice any difference whatsoever in stability compared to ext4 so I'm pretty happy with it as my new default.
Just go with whatever is the default of your distribution.
That said I've come to love the automatic snapshots OpenSUSE gives me with BTRFS. I think they use snapper to automate that. It does a snapshot before and after every packet install, update or removal. And it has some system to delete snapshots that aren't needed anymore but it always keeps enough to give you peace of mind, especially when you're experimenting.
I should look into keeping some snapshots of my ~ as well. And I should implement that especially for my family.
Snapper is life saver. I don't get it why nobody else use it by default, it's so great. It saved me many times. My coworker, who happens to be kind of non-linux user forced there by MS bullshit, uses Ubuntu and she's got to problems so many times, and all those would be couple clicks repair with Snapper...
For standard use, ext4. If you want to tinker and use fancy features, btrfs (or maybe zfs?).
I prefer using ext4 for stability. But if stability doesn't matter to you, you should use BTRFS.
Iâve been very happy with btrfs. Ext4 is basically rock solid, so you canât really go wrong with it, but btrfs has some nice features that ext4 doesnât have, like snapshots. And itâs fast. I have an extremely cheap SSD thatâs too slow to run anything with ext4, but actually usable with btrfs.
Do what OpenSUSE Tumbleweed suggests, make a brtfs partition for your system and xfs/ext4 for home parition
ext4, just keep it simple.
Btrfs or XFS.
No idea why people are into EXT4. XFS is more performant by far.
XFS is good but dated
I agree thatâs why most of my systems run btrfs. (Maybe soon bcachefs).
But XFS is in the same tier of âdatednessâ as EXT4, just with more performance. Some apps like ScyllaDB actually require XFS performance crazily enough.
BTRFS &/OR EXT4
I don't know what's the brand neW meta pick, but at least BTRFS over Ext4. BTRFS is just more stable and less corruptable than Ext4. Heck, fedora changed to it as default
If you don't care any will do. ext4 is fine but check the "use LVM" button during install if you do go with ext4 since it will give you better partitioning options later.
I love zfs. Started using it for my data storage pool and now I have it on root as well. It has some rough edges but overall it is very stable and has amazing features.
I've had it break on none TrueNAS systems.
ZFS is amazing but i wish it's support for flash was better. I'm not sure if ZFS will ever be able to fully utilize flash since ZFS was designed around spinning disks and the pitfalls they provide. Maybe at some point F2FS will catch on...
Ext4: It's the most common used and most mature filesystem we have. You can use any rescue system without pitfalls, in case your system fails. Some other filesystems have edge cases or a special setup is required. I am not saying they are bad or so, just saying if you have to ask this question to a public forum, then it's probably more safe to just use the default Ext4 system. It's battle tested for ages.
Ext4 is, afaik, the fastest as it's the most understood
Btrfs has compression and you can make snapshots to roll back to if something goes wrong (not necessary on immutable distros or NixOS tho)
There are many other options, but I've only ever had a need for those two
btrfs snapshots are still useful on immutable distros to recover accidentally deleted data.
True, but with files, you really benefit from the speed that ext4 provides
XFS. It fills the same role as ext4 but it's less likely to lose your data and that's probably the most important part of a file system. Not that ext4 is bad or anything, but XFS is good. The only downside to XFS is you can't shrink the filesystem size.
agreed. EXT4 for system, XFS for everything else (mostly large VM image files). when XFS is properly configured for the underlying drive array geometry, its a nearly perfect streamlined FS.
No love for bcachefs?
Chill. That thing just hit the mainline.
Thank you brave pioneers. I just felt confident to switch to btrfs last year.
Uff, somehow missed your post. See mine. That's the FS I'm hoping to use next. I'm waiting for it to support swapfile, or alternatively read from official sources they won't ever support it, :). But yes, that's the one I'm looking forward to use.
It'll probably be my favorite filesystem in 2030.
Well since so many people recommend btrfs because "it have never lost any data for me". I want to suggest OP to never use btrfs ever. Because it has lost my data, at least three separate times, the most recent time a week ago. And it's not because of a power loss or anything, it just corrupted my files for absolutely no reason at all.
Stay away from btrfs at all costs.
"It's never lost data for me. Yet" is what they mean.
I totally agree, the only file system I've lost data with as a result of a file system corruption not caused by hardware errors or power problems in 35 years has been btrfs. FAT even served me better.
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
I'm curious, why do you use LVM with BTRFS and not just use BTRFS built in subvolumes?
Because I'm stupid and like to run my partitions across multiple drives. đ
I use f2fs on ssd's and ext4 on hdd's
I don't see the need for snapshots, I backup externally
SSDs* HDDs*
f2fs does one of the weirdest things with compression by default: the files are compressed but they still take up the same amount of blocks as the uncompressed files. This can get you the slight performance boost of compressed files, but doesnât actually save you space which is an odd choice. You can enable a flag in the kernel but it has other effects as well.
f2fs doesn't track file creation times. I thought I was ok with this, but, the longer I used it the more places it started to become an issue. Now I have all these notes that were created in 1970 and it just really takes away a powerful way of searching and organizing my notes.
I've always used XFS on spinning drives and F2FS on SSDs. No issues, they're very solid
Just a heads up if your SSD has issues or you lose power your data is gone
I like btrfs but only cause it got transparent compression. I don't need the extra disk space and it only helps a bit but I just think it's neat
If you're on spinning rust with a modern CPU, compression actually helps your read/write speeds quite a bit. It's faster for the CPU to compress/decompress then read/write less data because hard drives are so slow in comparison.
Even more neat
FS is for nubz, do these instead:
Read
dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/stdout
Write
dd if=/dev/stdin of=/dev/sda
BTRFS for the OS partitions, ext4 for /home, tmpfs for /tmp. I rarely need to use snapshots, but I do use a rolling release. It's one of those things you don't need until you really fucking NEED it. Tumbleweed support is great - I can roll back a bad update in about as long as it takes to reboot.
Seeing that user Flatpaks are installed in the home folder, I see this as an interesting strategy. EXT4 still beats BTRFS in certain read/write benchmarks. My only problem being that you lose provisioning.
I don't see a lot of people talking about this here, but BTRFS subvolume provisioning is probably the best reason to use BTRFS - and BCacheFS - not just CoW or snapshotting.
The old way, of having a set beginning and end of a partition, is like caveman technology to me now. Subvolumes are here to stay and I am happy about that.
If I need to do a little distrohop now, even though I wouldn't (rpm-ostree rebase go brrrr), all I'd do is delete an recreate the "@" subvolume (or the root subvolume) without touching another partition or subvolume. All storage space is shared between subvolumes, basically, removing that boundary distinction between them, so I get to keep the files, permissions and meta data in my "@home" and my "@var" subvolumes, even though I get rid of the old "@" to replace it with a new one.
Therefore the idea of having storage that is reliant upon partitioning, ordering sectors one after another, having to defragment and keep strict separations between them is absolutely archaic to me. I'll gladly take a slight performance hit just for the convenience of avoiding all that.
This is exactly how and what Im using.
Home and other ext4 are backed up one form or another on by NAS.
I used ext4 for yeeeeaaaarrssss but now I'm using LUKS+btrfs, stable, encrypted.
I prefer ext4 on HDD and f2fs on flash devices.
ext4 for system partitions and zfs for anything dedicated to personal data storage.
The problem with ZFS is that it breaks if you change versions.
BTRFS is not more performant than EXT4.
I personally dont use any features of BTRFS manually though, as Fedora Kinoite does that for me.
Note that ext4 is damn old and thus also not as performant as more modern ones like btrfs or bcachefs
This is not true. BTRFS has more features but ext4 is very performant. They're both similar enough that I promise you that you wouldn't notice unless you had some very specific use-case that needed to be performance tuned.
What do you think "being old" has to do with performance?
What do you think "being old" has to do with performance?
Being tailored to NVMEs or SATA SSDs instead of to HDDs and similar. But I am not sure about which one would be better here.
Phoronix Benchmark so we have something to look at
BTRFS seems to be better at multithreading, being outperformed by F2FS (which I forgot to mention, it is used on Android and I would call that damn stable).
Actually, F2FS seems to be a really good replacement for EXT4, being top in most tests, while having no journaling, while BTRFS in fact worked pretty badly!
Note that ext4 is damn old
Hmm ? Linux kernel is way older than ext4. And before ext4 there was ext3 and ext2. Linux users also have the choice of using XFS file system and for IT persons working for corporations XFS can have some advantages. Let's see, XFS was born in 1993.
more modern ones like btrfs or bcachefs
Years ago I thought that bcachecfs looked interesting but last thing I read about it this year was not very promising regarding reliability. Not sure whether it was in comments on Lemmy but here I found something from Linus himself : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcachefs#Stability
Yeah, bcachefs is still very very young, and not ready for much of anything beyond tinkering. But I'm definitely excited to have a native filesystem that's designed with tiers in mind.
2008 is not "damn old" in terms of filesystems.
It is 16 years ago, that's pretty old in terms of technology.
It's also an evolution of ex3 and ext2, and ext if you want to consider it's very short lifetime. In fact, the lead developer stated in 2008 that it was meant as a stop gap, as it's based on old technology with some new features, and that BTRFS was the future.
Exactly especially when the default file system on windows is 30 years old.
ETX4 was released in 2006 and BTRFS was released in 2007.
NTFS can't handle Linux file permissions. It is not suited as a system drive.
And supposedly it can give you problems if you use it to store your Steam games. I never cared to test that, though.
It works well enough for my game drive. At least i have yet to encounter any problem
I was always wondering if there could be a small Linux partition for additional information of NTFS partitions, like meta data stored as a separate file (or database). And off course it would need some virtualization layer like WINE does for the file path mapping. Then it would be possible to use NTFS as system drive and for games.
Obviously this would be problematic and performance wouldn't be great either (assuming), and it would complicate things for end user and developers too. But I was always thinking if this would be possible.
There's also an open source BTRFS driver for Windows.
Wsl2 lets windows do ext4
If youâre just doing a vanilla Linux install, ext4 is the way to go.
Upvoted. Not everyone wants to rely on backups and restore broken system every month like on BTRFS
We're not in 2014 anymore.
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.
And LVM is more than good enough for occasional snapshots before a major upgrade.
Good that you mentioned that. Reminded me that I have an Arch Linux install here where I forgot that I did choose BTRFS during installation. Within maybe a month I noticed FS errors. Looked scary. Nervously searching for documentation was even more scary :
What is this? My beloved Arch Wiki is not 100% perfect!
Then found this :
I figure this explains the popularity of BTRFS snapshot configurations. Luckily I had some backups :)