Best filesystem coming through
Best filesystem coming through
Other urls found in this thread:
what's wrong with ext?
slow compared to xfs
Overall, XFS is better than EXT4... other than not being able to shrink volumes.
ext is just spaghet torvalds code
it also fucks up on rolling distros (like getting errors after update) and fucks up again when kernel panics itself (being part of the kernel itself) while xfs doesn't do bullcrap.
How can it be the best filesystem if it can't even run windows
You can't even spread your filesystem on pancakes.
Honestly, I don't know much about filesystems or why one would be good over another. I've just been using ext4 for about 14 years or so and I never bothered to think about it. What would be a good primer on this?
Blame your shitty meme distro for that. Ext4 is as solid as a rock.
Would it be possible to write to him and ask him to write code from prison?
I've been using FFS/FFS2 (on OpenBSD) for same time, and I like not thinking much about the filesystem.
ehh, I never have done benchmarks, so I didn't know how it was. Isn't xfs used on bsd's exclusively though?
The whole filesystem was marked as unstable user. I will give my argument as a comparison for (you).
Lets look at the goal and purpose of a filesystem. Its primary function is to store data, I don't anyone will disagree. Now lets look at something else, lets say a cryptography library or algorithm. The sole purpose of one of these is to keep data encrypted and secure, again I don't think anyone will disagree. Now if at any point in its lifetime the cryptography algorithm performs the opposite function and leaks your data, anyone logical and sane would stop using that library. Unless of course there were no other options. In which case you would need to evaluate if this is something you could recover from or if it would be better to start from scratch. Luckily this doesn't apply in this case. Lets go back to our filesytem example. We already know that the purpose of the filesystem is to store data, so we can continue to extrapolate that the opposite is to lose data. If at any point in its lifetime of being presented to anyone besides the developers it does the opposite of what its supposed to and loses data, anyone logical and sane would stop using it especially considering there are options available where that have never done this. Of course linux users have a long history of cuckoldry when it comes to this and tend to prefer the worse is better approach.
Well, shrinking isn't safe on ext4 either.
I've been using btrfs on my laptop and never experienced any data loss. Numerous times I've had the laptop forcefully shutdown without unmounting the filesystem. This includes times when it is actively writing to the disk.
I think it's the opposite. Wikipedo only shows experimental support for FreeBSD.
ahh. Maybe that's why I just stick to ext.
XFS is a remnant of SGI's IRIX. That's how fucking old it is. In Moronix benchmark tests, it is faster than Ext4, but it's a dinosaur. I prefer being able to grow and shrink my partitions and not having to worry about defragmenting my hard drives. This is why I would go out of my way to select EXT4 if XFS was default.
My biggest problem with XFS so far has been the number of programs (including GCC) that cannot cope with inode64. That is a major pain in the ass, especially when running gaymes in Wine.
XFS still has fragmentation issues? Weird. I thought that was solved with journaling et al.
ext3 is fine
FAT is fine
just buy moar disk
FAT can't handle really large files.
The reference implementation can't. The reason FAT is the choice FS in embedded applications is because it's so barebones that there's little overhead and OEMs can just slap higher-level extensions on top of it.
I don't have any choice but to accept.
There is fragmentation, but not really an issue.