So, /g/, what should I use for my filesystem?
>>51931529
install gentoo
>>51931529
>Stability
EXT4
>Enhanced features
ZFS/BTRFS
>Speed
XFS
HFS+
>>51931529
NTFS, the best file system there is.
>>51931558
>Enhanced
I meant advanced, lel
Fucking English
>>51931558
is EXT4 really the most stable?
>>51931529
>Stability
NTFS
>Features
BTRFS
>FS to murder your wife for
ReiserFS
>Speed
Fuck you.
So is ReFS supposed to be good? And when will Microsoft finally implement it for consumer use?
>>51931529
Why doesn't Linus develop his own file system? one that would compliment his kernel and appease his ego.
F2FS on your SSD
>>51931597
>NTFS
>Stable
>>51931585
Yes. That or EXT3.
>>51931640
>another memester that isn't explaining his point
Do you just want stability and ease of use? Use ext4. Do you want new, exciting features but still care about stability? Use ZFS. Do you want bleeding edge features and performance and have a good backup system and are okay with issues and bugs? Use btrfs.
>>51931529
btrfs for everything
>>51931574
>>51931597
>NTFS
>case-insensitive
Inferior.
>>51931597
>NTFS
more fragmentation than the android phone market
>>51931694
Why do so many people make a fuss of case-insensitive? Why is case-sensitive superior?
>>51931529
fat16 master race
>>51931529
Why is HFS+ worst fs ever?
>>51931803
His major complaint is 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.
>tfw one day based Linus will some day die and the SJW hoard he keeps at bay will ruin Linux forever
>>51931733
More choices, "hello.exe" and "Hello.exe" are different files. Basically a small difference but it can mean a lot to someone who actually uses those features.
>>51931574
>>51931694
>NTFS
Nope, never, it's a piece of shit that has an absurd amount of compatibility. I can't count how many times I have had my HDD crash because NTFS being a cunt
>>51931733
How would they make that?
Save both the file name and the file name in upper case so you can still lookup if a file exists in O(1)? That's not memory efficient.
Search for every file in the directory, converting everything to upper case, to lookup if a file exists? That's not cpu efficient.
It's demanding and takes away the possibility to save two files with different case. Sounds inferior to me.
>>51933293
For the second one,
Or just convert the filename you're looking for to either upper case, or lower case, and store all filenames as one or the other.
Either way, storing two strings is nothing efficiency wise.
There's a lot of reasons case-insensative file naming is bad, that isn't one.
>>51931558
>XFS
>speed
>>51931848
Good explanation, MVP
>>51933489
Ib ny experience it's faster than ext4
>>51933127
>More choices, "hello.exe" and "Hello.exe" are different files.
This example though is bad design imo.
>>51933477
>There's a lot of reasons case-insensative file naming is bad, that isn't one.
Okay cool, but what exactly are the significant reasons for which make case-insensitive so bad?
>>51931694
>>NTFS
>>case-insensitive
No it isn't, windows file access API is.
>>51933477
Of course storing every file name twice is relevant. It's a fucking file system. Creating an empty takes twice as much write time, twice the memory. Additionally it doesn't keep it simple, it makes every basic operation more convoluted, and more prone to bug. And for what purpose? To limit how you can name files ffs. Talking about bad design decisions.
>>51931597
ext4 > ntfs
there's no downside but compatibility, which you really dont need if youre asking OP's question
ZFS
F
S
>>51931655
Fuck no. ext3 is enormously fragile compared to ext4 or modern XFS or ZFS.
>>51933293
>>51933477
>>51933927
Are you all idiots? This is pretty much computationally irrelevant. Tree lookups can and are done with canonicalized names, nothing is stored "twice".
>>51931529
ReiserFS, hands down
>>51935975
Yeah, it's a killer file system indeed.
>>51935839
So then case insensitive look ups cost more cpu. Same problem.
>>51936047
Yes, it was somewhat of a problem. In times where 80386 DX @ 16 MHz were common.
Newsflash: modern CPUs are about 100,000-500,000 times faster than they were back then.
>>51932939
dumb frogposter
>>51936183
I thought this frog garbage originated on /g/?
It's the only board where 90% of its users are clinically depressed after all.
>>51936183
At that point FreeBSD will be usable on the desktop.
>>51936155
Don't be butthurt friend, one day you'll be funny too
>>51936225
I really wish Clover could filter all of you insufferable tripfags. Just fucking kill yourself. There is absolutely no need to identify yourself on an anonymous imageboard other than to fulfil your vapid sensation of being a special snowflake.
>>51933766
thanks for this clarification, i always assumed that ntfs itself was case-insensitive
more info: http://superuser.com/q/364057/55312
>>51936363
If you can't write the filter yourself, you don't belong on /g/.
>>51932939
>SJW hoard ... will ruin Linux forever
Ah yes, the illusive SJW menace.
Do you have any evidence that they're after muh Linucks or do you just spend too much time on /r/theredpill?
>>51936685
>>>/tumblr/
>>51933127
>more choices
id agree with that if you could have a folder name that is shared by a filename in the same folder but you cant
>>51931600
REEeeeFS
>>51936134
It's a relative problem, faggot. It scales with amount of files which gets larger too.
And then still, it's serving a bad purpose, so it's completely wasted cycles at that.
