Why should I use btrfs as my next filesystem, /g/?
Or what filesystem should I use next?
>>51679075
How is HFS+ worse than FAT32 and NTFS??
>>51679075
>not using ReiserFS
Kek, enjoy your botnet
>>51679109
>How is HFS+ worse than FAT32 and NTFS??
applel fag pls go :3
>>51679109
>How is HFS+ worse than FAT32 and NTFS??
Fun fact: Torvalds doesn't even consider these to be even file systems.
>>51679075
>Why should I use btrfs as my next filesystem, /g/?
You wouldn't, it's still buggy and you risk losing data.
>Or what filesystem should I use next?
ZFS for your file server, ext4 for your work station.
>>51679121
Is Murder-your-wife-FS even maintained any more?
>>51679109
http://www.itworld.com/article/2868393/linus-torvalds-apples-hfs-is-probably-the-worst-file-system-ever.html
>>51679135
I was so excited for the week when it seemed that Apple would make ZFS the default file system for Mac OS X.
I'm still waiting...
>>51679075
f 2 f s
2
f
s
unless you're using a HDD in which case
e x t 4
x
t
4
>>51679109
HFS+ isn't worse than FAT32. FAT32 has historical file size (< 4GB) and cluster size limitations (32kb for all modern hard drive sizes).
It has a retarded architecture of files being stored in a long linked list, that leads to performance issues due to disk formatting.
It doesn't have journalling (copy on write), which means you risk data loss on every system crash.
If you think that HFS+ is a mess, I would suggest you never look at how FAT32 maintains backwards-compatibillity to FAT16 (8.3 file naming restrictions, etc)
The only reason why FAT32 is still around is cause its the least common denominator for non-windows devices. Microsoft are being cunts that won't support open file systems, while simulatneously not giving out proper specs for NTFS (which leads to reverse-engineered unstable third party implementations) and patenting the shit out of their official solution ExFAT.
Don't get me wrong, NTFS isn't perfect either but unlike FAT32 it at least fullfills the minimum requirements to consider it a viable file system.
>>51679135
The fact that slashes... used in Filepath URI's to denote separation of folders... can be used in a filename on OSX is proof enough that they have the most retarded file system ever. Absolutely nothing was thought through.~/documents/pictures/cat.jpg
There are 4 places that file could exist depending on how many of those symbols were in the file name.
That whole thing could be the filename, and it could be placed in any folder, which itself can be named exactly the same thing.
>>51679109
HFS+ wasn't created in the 70s to handle 3KB read-only floppies.
>>51679135
Can I use ZFS in Linux?
>>51679270
yes imo its overrated tho.
You have to load separately because licensing wont let it in the kernel
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS
>>51679075
>Why should I use btrfs as my next filesystem, /g/?
COW snapshots and incremental send/receive.
My daily full disk backups only take a few seconds over 100Mbps link.
>>51679075
Oh come on Linus. What about FAT and NTFS?
>>51679258
Still doesn't answer for NTFS, in fact, that only answers for the original FAT, not FAT32 or exFAT
>>51679257
>The fact that slashes... used in Filepath URI's to denote separation of folders... can be used in a filename on OSX is proof enough that they have the most retarded file system ever. Absolutely nothing was thought through.
But you're lying though, you need to escape slashes.
>>51679206
Is F2FS a meme?
>>51679270
Yes
But you shouldn't. Use it on freebsd instead.
>>51679257
Another problem would be that HFS not only uses NFD to decompose unicode, but it's a custom NFD.
From Apple's own docs: "For example, HFS Plus converts all file names to decomposed Unicode, while Macintosh keyboards generally produce precomposed Unicode."
What does this mean? This means that all your software uses the precomposed unicode form, but the filesystem doesn't.
If you create a file that contains the letter 'ü', instead of being stored as 0xc3, 0xbc (which is the canonical unicode form of ü), it's stored in a decomposed form as 0x75, 0xcc, 0x88.
So the filesystem isn't creating files exactly as the program named them.
This is the reason bash's tab-completion doesn't work on OSX if you use unicode.
To make matters worse, Apple doesn't decompose everything. From Apple's docs again:
"For example, HFS Plus (Mac OS Extended) uses a variant of Normal Form D in which U+2000 through U+2FFF, U+F900 through U+FAFF, and U+2F800 through U+2FAFF are not decomposed (this avoids problems with round trip conversions from old Mac text encodings)."
So this whole madness means that if you were to do this:$ touch ü ; ls -l | grep ü
it will return nothing on OSX because HFS+ changed the filename.
>>51679292
>doesn't answer for NTFS
Late 80s.
>not FAT32 or exFAT
Evolutions of FAT + limited forward compatibility.
>>51679320
So, non-English characters won't work there?
>>51679508
Yes.
>>51679131
>:3
Fucking die.
>>51679757
Discuss filesystems or leave this thread
>>51679769
hahahaa fuck off.
>>51679769
>getting mad cause someone isnt discussing what the thread is about on 4chan.
welcome to 4chan, you must be new.
>>51679121
>2015
>still using wifekillerFS
>>51679769
>>51679893
>>51679075
btrfs because it's great
>>51679907
>>51679923
>>51679932
>>51679942
>>51679953
>>51679969
>pepes in December of 2015
go back to 9gag
>>51679973
Pepe belongs to 4chan
>>51679978
>belongs
no they belonged. They died out and now tumblr/9gag owns them. fuck off.
>>51679986
People say steve jobs got cancer from Gizmodo or being a vegan. I think he got it from you.
>>51679320
bash-completion works just fine with umlauts though. Seems like more of an issue with the bash implementation than the file system, to be honest.
>The fact that slashes... used in Filepath URI's to denote separation of folders... can be used in a filename on OSX is proof enough that they have the most retarded file system ever. Absolutely nothing was thought through.
Just don't do retarded shit like that.
Do you know what bat does when you execute c:\Program Files\Internet Explorer.exe? It will Execute c:\Program.exe with the parameters Files\Internet Explorer.exe
If that fails it will execute c:\Program Files\Internet.exe with the parameter Explorer.exe
Not only is this beyond retarded and unexpected, its an outright security danger.
>Being backwards-compatible is an ugly problem, but at least shit doesn't break constantly due to minor implementation differences like in the freetard loonix world
>HFS+ still bleaks in comparison to the amount of ugly bullshit Windows does for backwards compabillity
>>51679258
>HFS+ wasn't created in the 70s to handle 3KB
No but HFS was created in the 80s to handle 1mb floppies. HFS+ is a backwards-compatible extension to it that supports any feature you expect from a modern desktop file system.
>>51680009
>>51679986
fuck off
I would use BTRFS but it doesn't like being encrypted. It starts causing my ECC memory to shit out errors and the install to grind to a halt before finally crashing and becoming unusable. So I'll continue using XFS until it's sorted.
>>51681665
Isn't XFS only suitable for large files?
>>51681736
Ext4 is only recommended for arrays up to 16TiB. XFS will support exbibytes.
>>51681794
>implying you'll ever store up to 64 EiB of cp
>>51679286
This
Being able to transparently mount, nest, interchange and snapshot subvolumes is GOAT
I know nothing about filesystems, and the only two I've heard about are FAT32 and NTFS because I regularly had to choose between them while wiping my hard drive.
Any books on this? Where can I read about modern filesystems?
>>51682304
Windows doesn't support modern filesystems :^)
EXFAT > Anything freetards have at their disposal.
Prove me wrong.
>>51682380
I don't use windows anymore and I just need to know more about filesystems.
>>51679075
>linus torvalds
literally who
>>51682541
Go back to your desktop thread, ben.
>inb4 literally who
>>51682304
pls respond
>>51682541
Loonus Thorvaldicus. He's a clinically insane kernelkin who claims that he is actually the linux kernel, despite being born into the body of a human being.
>>51682541
>>51683728
>>51683901
>Posting 3DPD.
>>51679075
>2015
>not using ext4
>>51682304
COME ON YOU FAGGOTS SOMEONE SUGGEST SOMETHING
>>51685308
pls come on someone
>>51679075
I fell for the btrfs meme.
>try to hibernate
>just fucks my GRUB2 up
And also
>get disk full errors even though it says I still have 3GB free
>turns out metadata takes up 3GB and you have to occasionally manually balance it
>but you can't balance if you don't have any space left
Next time I'm going for ext4 again.
XFS
