XFS is a possibility

Btrfs or xfs. Sometimes ext4.

I use ext4 for my desktop and zfs for my media server. Ext4 is faster, ZFS is more accurate and less corruptable.

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

ITT 5 answers by 4 people

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.

ext4 works perfectly fine for me and most people.

I’m using btrfs for my desktop/laptop and ZFS for my NAS and router. Both seem pretty robust.

Ext4 being “old” shouldn’t put you off. It is demonstratively robust with a clear history of structure integrity. It has immense popularity and a good set of recovery tools and documentation. These are exactly what you are looking for in a filesystem.

I’m not saying EXT4 is the best for your requirements, just that age of a file system is like fine wine.

If you’re married stay away from ReiserFS.

Ext4 is old, but fast and very robust. You won’t loose data or corrupt the filesystem if your system looses power. It can even survive partial wipes, if you accidentally overwrite the first few megs of you drive with a messed up dd, nearly all your data will be recoverable, including filenames and directory structure.

It doesn’t have very fancy features, but it is the best tested and most robust option available.

It really depends on your priorities. Single drive is good for a home system with nothing really important on it… once you get to wanting to keep it and where recovery from backups is too much downtime, you want at least a drive mirror… nothing wrong with exr4+mdraid for that, although you don’t get the checksumming that zfs gives it will me pretty fast & if a drive fails you can run degraded on one drive until you get the new drive in.

I’ve been running zfs for 10 years and not lost a single byte of data even after doing stupid shit like tripping over the sata cables and disconnecting half the drives. It’s survived multiple drive failures (as long as the failures are on different bits of the disk, it recover get a clean copy onto a third drive, but it’s a brown trousers moment when stuff like that happens).

Downsides, it aint fast, and it does tend to like lots of memory. You want it on your fileserver, not your gaming system.

IMO there’s no point in a single drive zfs… it’ll warn you faster that the drive is f*cked but what do you do then?

I run ext4 inside lvm (inside luks)

O use ext4 at home and im 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.

I still swear buy F2FS, been super reliable and very good perf

I like btrfs cause of transparent compression but I’m pretty sure other filesystems like ZFS have that too

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

Ext4 for general pupose linux. Zfs for bsd network drives

oh I just read up on this last knight. Yes ext4 is old but it is used because it is still works quite well. btrfs, dis anyone say that as butfarts, can handle much larger partitions ext4 maxes out at a few tb while btfrs can get much larger. ZFS can handle a around a billion tb but it needs a lot more resources to to even start

ext4.

Never used arch; just slackware and then enterprise linux.

I have two drives in my machine, nvme and a sata. Nvme is my root partition and it is set to btrfs, because I love snapshots, they are just a must for me. The sata is my home partition and it is on ext4. Ext4 and is tried and true and I don’t want to risk losing my personal files.

FAT32

Hi all. Apologies to hijack this thread. Figured it should be OK since it’s also on the topic of file systems.

Long story short, I need to reinstall Nobara OS and I plan to install Nobara on my smaller SSD drive with btrfs and set my /home folder to my larger nvme. I’m thinking of using ext4 for my /home and have snapshots of the main system stored on the nvme. Looking for a sanity check to see if this is OK or if I should be doing things differently. Thanks.