Comparison of file systems - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

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
  • kittenroar@beehaw.orgEnglish
    9·
    3 months ago

    Just ext4 on my Linux things; I got scared away from btrfs because of some file loss horror stories

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Ext4 is prone to corruption as it doesn’t have much error detection. Whatever you do don’t lose power.

      • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
        8·
        3 months ago

        Ext4 is prone to corruption as it doesn’t have much error detection. Whatever you do don’t lose power.

        I use Ext4 since 20 years in all of my systems. And I had my fair share of power loses. It’s not a problem as you describe, because Ext4 is journaling. Ext4 is robust and one should not worry to lose data randomly.

        Quote from: https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/journaling-file-system

        A file system that contains its own recovery capability in the event of a failure. In a journaling file system, the information about the changes is recorded in a separate log (the journal) before the indexes to the files are updated. If a power or other system failure corrupts the indexes as they are being rewritten, the operating system can use the log to repair them when the computer is restarted.

          • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
            1·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
              1·
              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.