What filesystem is currently best for a single nvme drive with regard to performance read/write as well as stability/no file loss? ext4 seems very old, btrfs is used by RHEL, ZFS seems to be quite good… what do people tend to use nowadays? What is an arch users go-to filesystem?

  • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    ext4 being old, and still being the main file system most distros use by default, should be enough alone to tell you being old isnt bad.

    it means its battle tested, robust, stable, and safe. Otherwise it wouldnt be old and still be in widespread use.

    • DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      i would generally recommend XFS over ext4 for anything where a CoW filesystem isn’t needed. in my experience, it performs better than ext4 at most workloads, and still supports some nifty features like reflink copies if you want them.

  • odium@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    btrfs is great for system stability because of snapshots. You can set it up to automatically make snapshots at a timed interval or every time you run pacman.

    If something breaks, you can just revert to a previous snapshot. You can even do this from grub. It’s a bit hard to set up, so if you want, you could use an arch based distro which automatically sets it up like GarudaOS.

        • Nonononoki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess not much on desktop Linux, but every Android phone uses it. Really wish every Linux desktop would start encrypting their /home partition by default, which is the standard by many other operating systems.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or OpenSUSE , all setup out of the box for btrfs, snapshots, grub rollback, and cleanup timers, etc.

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow, first time I’ve seen GarudaOS recommended by someone who’s not me. Awesome distro, daily driver on my gaming rig.

  • Kogasa@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Been using BTRFS for all disks and purposes for a few years, I would recommend it with the requirement that you research it first. There are things you should know, like how/when to disable CoW, how to manage snapshots, how to measure filesystem use, and what the risks/purposes of the various btrfs operations are. If you know enough to avoid doing something bad with it, it’s very unlikely to break on you.

  • jg1i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most people should use ext4. Only use something else if you want to tinker and don’t need long term data storage.

  • shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Be conservative and use the simplest thing that supports your needs and don’t be suckered by feature lists. I have never needed more than ext4. It generally has the best all round performance and maturity is never a bad thing when it comes to filesystems. It isn’t most suitable for some embedded and enterprise environments and if you are working with those you generally know the various tradeoffs.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ext4 is probably going to be the fastest. When it comes to reliability, old is good. If you don’t need any of the features Btrfs and ZFS, you’ll reap higher performance using Ext4. Otherwise ZFS is more feature-complete compared to Btrfs, however it’s generally not available as root fs option in OS installers. Ubuntu used to have it as an experimental option but I think that’s gone now. If you know what you’re doing you can use it as a root fs. Personally I’m using Ext4 on LVMRAID on a 2-way NVMe mirror. I might be switching to ZFS on root when I get to rebuild this machine. All my storage is using ZFS.

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m using btrfs for my desktop and laptop (and its snapshots have saved me a couple of times), and ZFS for my NAS and router. Both seem pretty robust.

  • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I usually just use EXT4, but perhaps you should check out F2FS. It’s designed for solid state storage mediums, as while most were created with traditional spinning hard discs in mind

    • Krik@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      At the end of the day though after all of our storage tests conducted on Clear Linux, EXT4 came out to being just 2% faster than F2FS for this particular Intel Xeon Gold 5218 server paired with a Micron 9300 4TB NVMe solid-state drive source

      I’ll suggest XFS.

  • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    O use ext4 at home and in servers that are not SLES HANA DB ones.

    On SLES HANA servers I use ext4 for everything but the database partitions, for which SAP and SUSE support and recommend XFS.

    In a few occasions people left the non-db partitions as the default on SUSE install, btrfs, with default settings. That turned out to cause unnecessary disk and processor usage.

    I would be ashamed of justifying btrfs on a server for the possibility of undoing “broken things”. Maybe in a distro hopping, system tinkering, unstable release home computer, but not in a server. You don’t play around in a server to “break things” that often. Linux (differently from Windows) servers don’t break themselves at the software level. For hardware breakages, there’s RAID, backups, and HA reduntant systems, because if it’s a hardware issue btrfs isn’t going to save you - even if you get back that corrupted file, you won’t keep running in that hardware, nor trust that “this” was the only and last file it corrupted.

    EDIT: somewhat offtopic: I never use LVM. Call me paranoid and old fashioned, but I really prefer knowing where my data is, whole.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Facebook was using btrfs for some usecases. Not sure what you mean by breaking things?

      • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most comments suggesting btrfs were justifying it for the possibility of rolling back to a previous state of files when something breaks (not a btrfs breakage, but mishaps on the system requiring an “undo”).

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah, I see. While that use may be a good plan for home server, doing that for production server seems like a bandaid solution to having a test server and controlling deployed changes very carefully.

          • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. A waste of server resources, as a productions server is not tinkerable, and shouldn’t “break”.