On 2023-04-27 09:34-0400 Matt Connell <m...@connell.tech> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 08:23 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: > > Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros. > > There's a reason for this. It can fulfill all but the most niche or > intensive roles, is robustly supported, well-tested both in > development and through wide use in the field, and generally "just > works". > > It is a great general purpose file system, for general purpose > computing. Standard LAMP stack, desktop, laptop, HTPC, etc. are all > satisfied by ext4 > > Since it is so broadly used and supported, you are guaranteed to find > documentation for whatever feature or issue you discover.
i agree with all of the above. > > What would others recommend ? > > For general purpose computing/serving, in a non-scaling, non- > performance-critical, non-experimental scenario, ext4 > > Unless[1] you are specifically: > > * learning/exploring/experimenting > * storing billions of tiny files > * storing 1TB+ individual files > * not using any kind of backups[2] btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase speed in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will never get a corrupt file and snapshots make backups and rollbacks easier. however, they do need a bit more maintenance (described in their respective wiki articles). > -- > > [1] I'm certain that there are other use cases for which ext4 is not > an optimal choice, but I don't have first-hand experience with them. > > [2] I'm aware that zfs and others can do snapshots for recovery and > "roll back" but there is no replacement for versioned hard copy > backups you can send snapshots to other drives or computers, either as full or incremental backups. i'd say it's pretty much the same. 😉
