Im formatting my 2TB drive for my new home server (Linux). Whats the best file system?
FAT32.
Ext4 is the best one
ReiserFS, official file system of convicted murderers.
Ext4
The best one for Linux is EXT4
Btrfs is pretty good nowadays
HFS+ (Journaled, Case Sensitive, Encrypted)
>>53274334
Die in hell
>>53274083
More like butt fs
Did ubuntu 15 say FU to the GPL/BSD incompatibility and incorporate ZFS into the linux kernel?
NTFS
Ntfs
JFS masterrace WW@?
btrfs
>>53274066
Kek
.zip
xfs is pretty cool
>>53274046
ext4
>>53274046
ext4, it just werks
B T R F S
T
R
F
S
>>53274046
you're pic a related
If you think it's too much trouble, btrfs is stable enough for home.
The final option is to install DragonflyBSD and go with HAMMER.
For a single 2TB drive any modern Linux file system will do. Ext2, Ext4 will do the job.
I use btrfs for my data drives. I have two of them in raid 1 and since I am using btrfs I can just add another drive to the pool if I need more storage.
>>53274563
>>53274644
>winkiddies discover what their fs is
>>53274543
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS
>>53274046
Fat12
Veritas File System is the best one out there.
>>53274334
>Linus Torvalds Says Apple's HFS+ Is the Worst, Probably Designed by Monkeys
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linus-Torvalds-Says-Apple-s-HFS-plus-Is-the-Worst-Probably-Designed-by-Monkeys-469801.shtml
>>53274046
There are 3 choices. Want something easy, secure, and doesn't take a lot of configuration? Ext4 is the best general use file system around. If this drive is hosting the OS etc... I strongly suggest you use Ext4.
In the event the drive is entirely data-storage focused, there are two options - ZFS an BTRFS. Both of these have some trade offs and whatnot, but overall they're excellent for server/storage situations. ZFS is further "along" on Solaris, but a bit more unstable on Linux in comparison. BTRFS doesn't have as many features because its newer than ZFS, but they're working toward it, but for a home sever it has everything ZFS does pretty much and is easier on Linux.
So yeah. Do that.
>>53274046
if its just single disk storage, use ntfs. easiest to troubleshoot
>>53274083
check the mailinglist, its one giant bugfest.
btrfs is barely better than /dev/null
>>53274046
Everyone saying ext4 hasn't felt what FS feels like. ZFS is the answer OP, even if you don't think you need all the bonus features.
>>53274046
Depends on your use cases
ZFS, btrfs, XFS and ext4 all have their place, IMO.
>>53274334
HFS is considered PoS by anyone with soem FS knowledge. It's basically a joke but Apple doesn't have anything better.
>>53276233
>check the mailinglist, its one giant bugfest.
I gave it a quick glance and all the bugs I saw pointed out were related to in-progress features marked experimental? (e.g. raid 5/6 support)
I want to know the same, in my case however, I want redundancy and more storage.
What should I get and with which filesystem should I use it? Two 3Tb or three 2Tb HGST drives?
What do you think about ZFS with Raid 1 in case 2 drives are best? Or should I use btrfs or even something else?
>>53279960
If you're using ZFS you're better suited to ZFS raid in software if you have the RAM for it instead of using the mobo controller
>>53279960
I would get two 3TB drives. Fewer drives for the same storage is better for reliability, space, and generally also cost.
I would go with btrfs raid1 personally, but zfs raid1 should also be pretty much equivalent in terms of the storage layout.
I prefer btrfs because it's more flexible to future growth. With btrfs, you can just throw in a new disk at any time and your array will grow to accommodate it.
With ZFS, it's a bit more complicated and not always easily possible.
>>53279960
buy 4tb
3tb is the worst storage drive for any model
>>53274046
ext4
>>53280070
Also to clarify, by ‘raid1’ I mean the raid levels built into the filesystem (respectively).
>>53279960
Use RAID5/RAIDZ1, and synchronized offsite backup with at least 1 disk redundancy.
A separate physical location is far better than trying RAID5+1 or whatever for the equivalent budget.
