• froztbyte@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      my response is halfway partly a shitpost (but only very partly)

      if you’re a general user, it’s probably fine. if you’re someone who cares about specific properties of things, it’s probably less than ideal and something else would suit you better - but you’d probably already know that

      some details: ext2 and ext3 had a lot of journal-damage/restoration issues, along with fairly severe density issues over much longer term use. the design characteristics also didn’t lend itself well to higher performance (and this started showing a lot as the SSD age came around). ext4 has improved somewhat on the first and third parts, and soooorta has dealt with the second if you squint

    • self@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s fine and I use it for extremely performance-focused (see: linux gaming) and embedded systems, but LVM+ext4 is generally a better idea and I use ZFS for systems where extreme reliability and storage flexibility are important (so just my NAS machine really)

      • froztbyte@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        it irks me that linux-zfs still has no good native encryption outcome. I had to do zfs on multiple mdraid mirrors, but ugh. that you directly lose out on the zfs insight into block device health there… big sad