What are pros and cons of certain file system for the casual user (which is 'best' for holding lots of small files, few huge ones, general use etc.). The default lunix ext4 happens to be the fastest in benchmark, some claim XFS is superior to ext4 and btrfs is 'the future'.
Can we break it down?
>>52057740
For the average user:
Fat32
pros - multiplatform
cons - max file size is 4GB
Everything else
pros - none
cons - none
ntfs.
fuck using linux.
>>52060148
>I've had an ntfs partition that I share between dual boots for over ten years without problems of any kind
Winfags who have no fucking idea what they're talking about don't belong on /g/.
>>52057740
btrfs is literally just reimplementing ZFS ten plus years with more bugs and fewer features because of licensing issues and Not Invented Here syndrome.
it'll be pretty good eventually, but the unneeded extra delay is unforgivable.
>>52057740
Btrfs snapshot backups and subvolume mounting are comfy as fuck
DO NOT USE BTRFS UNLESS YOU LIKE HIBERNATION NOT WORKING AND RUNNING OUT OF SPACE BECAUSE OF MUH METADATA
>>52063883
Who the fuck uses hibernation
>>52061541
>>52061541
Yeah I also have the same setup. Windows at start, large shared data partition in the middle and Linux partitions at end of disk . The shared partition is ntfs for windows benefit but Linux haa no problem using it. Only problem is if you don't shut down a windows boot properly it locks the partition next time you not into Linux. But this is just windows being its usual selfish greedy self!
>>52063976
*boot into Linux, and didn't mean to quote twice
>>52060148
Whenever I read something about NTFS I'm reminded of this:
"Oh god, the NTFS code is a purple opium-fueled Victorian horror novel that uses global recursive locks and SEH for flow control. Let's write ReFs instead. (And hey, let's start by copying and pasting the NTFS source code and removing half the features! Then let's add checksums, because checksums are cool, right, and now with checksums we're just as good as ZFS? Right? And who needs quotas anyway?)"
source: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=74
>>52063976
>it locks the partition next time you not into Linux.
not windows fault this time , fat and ntfs file systems store the file entries in memory as an indexed linked-list and until you shutdown properly (write the file entries to disk) linux won't mount it to prevent corrupting it .
>>52066288
Thats actually really thoughtful. Nice
>>52066335
while i was writing that, i realized it's still windows's fault for not syncing properly and for creating shitty filesystems
tl;dr = yep , you are right, it's still windows fault
>>52060106
>Fat32
> cons - max file size is 4GB
No it's not.
>>52066412
>Fat32
you are confusing it with exFat
also :
max file size in Fat32 = 4GB
max Fat32 parition size is 32GB i think
there are some 3rd party tools like "FAT32 Format by Ridgecrop" which claim can make Fat32 partitions greater than 32GB but that's not the point.
>>52066604
Also, you forgot to mention why FAT32 is so heinous. They actually reference the blocks by building one big singly linked list, whereas most sane file systems use tree like structures...
>>52063903
people who need to keep processes loaded while disconnected from power
IMHO:
Ntfs for Windows files
Fat32 for OS partition
Fat16 for pagefile partition (yez I do deez)
ext4 general loonix
ext2 general loonix on flash drives (SSD and usb flash drives)
The reason for Fat32 and Fat16 on my setup is fast access. The reason for ext2 is not using journaling since flash devices have some limitations on write cycles.
>>52067483
if the only reason you are avoiding ext4 is because the journaling, you could tweak ext4 for flash drives
you can disable journaling
reduce IO and increase performance. mount with the options 'noatime, nodiratime'
just a thought , not saying ext2 is bad tho
>>52067768
Ext3 journaling is minimal, and has enough performance enhancements, even if just when you have to fsck, that there's no reason to use ext2 anymore.
>>52063903
Laptop users, particularly those with jobs.
