Would you not say that xfs is preferred over ext4? In benchmarks and recovery
exercises, it appears to come out ahead for performance and recovery.
The negative aspect of deploying xfs is that once the partition size is set,
you cannot add or reduce it's size without a reformat of that partition.
I am using it on a workstation for /boot, / and /var. My next upgrade will
include /home.
Regards
Leslie
Mr. Leslie Satenstein
Montréal Québec, Canada
From: Gary Dale <garyd...@torfree.net>
To: debian-kde@lists.debian.org
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Btrfs & Dolphin
On 11/09/16 04:00 PM, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> On 09/11/2016 09:42 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
>
>> I've been considering switching from Ext4 for a
>> while but don't have any compelling reasons to do so..
>
> Why? It's still in development was the last I heard. When I build my
> new computer next year to use the latest peripherals devices, I'm
> thinking about using ZFS, it's fast and requires good hardware and ECC
> RAM.
> https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/HOWTO-install-Debian-GNU-Linux-to-a-Native-ZFS-Root-Filesystem
>
> Until then EXT is the Holy Grail of Linux file systems, self healing,
> no compatibility problems and fast too.
ZFS is what Btrfs was based on but the licensing isn't compatible with
the Linux kernel so there are some problems. Btrfs is a fully-free file
system with full kernel support so any issues that file managers have
with Btrfs are probably worse with ZFS.
While Btrfs hasn't reached the v1.0 milestone, it's been considered
stable / production ready for years now. As Martin points out, there may
be features to avoid, but I'm not interested in compression or RAID in
my situation. My boot SSD is plenty large while my main file stores are
a network server and an existing RAID array. It sounds like it's just a
matter of scheduling some time to do the conversion.
