5 ms·

Problem is, Linux does not have any decent general purpose filesystem. That is why people risk their data using an untested hack.

by tjoff 9y ago

anc84 9y ago
What is not decent about ext4 as general purpose FS?
- laumars 9y ago
  ext4 is fine for most people but it's not comparable to ZFS. Even ZFS aside, I've been unconvinced by ext4 these days and have starting using XFS on all new Linux server builds.
  - anc84 9y ago
    So it IS a decent general purpose FS. ;)
    - laumars 9y ago
      I think there's two incompatible arguements going on here: 1. Is ext4 a decent general purpose file system? 2. Is ext4 a decent alternative or comparable to ZFS? My answers to those questions would be: 1. It's an "acceptable" general purpose file system but it's really starting to fall behind the competition. When I see comments like how people don't need features like snapshots et al I'm reminded about just how popular Windows Shadow Copy is. Ok that is a service rather than a file system feature but it shows that there is a demand for desktops to have this feature. Checksuming is another example - it's practically free service these days as CPUs have hardware extensions for popular checksum hashes. So the argument is akin to saying "why do we need file system journaling"; sure you don't need them but you're massively grateful when you do have them and your consumer hardware throws it's inevitable hissyfit. In my opinion Linux really does need to up its game. Ext4 feels almost stuck in time when compares to the likes of XFS which is years older than ext and yet they're working on snapshotting. Then you have really forward thinking file systems like what DragonflyBSD have been working on. They understand the need for better resilience of our data on desktops due to ever expanding storage capacities and HAMMERFS looks extremely exciting as a result. So to get back to your question. Yes ext4 is acceptable for most people, but is acceptable really good enough? Maybe we should invest more time and energy into XFS? 2. Is ext4 a decent alternative or comparable to ZFS? Simply put, no.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  * stores data - yes * handles crashes - yes * detects corruption - no I'd want all three for a general purpose FS. Snapshotting is nice but it's complex and expensive, and you can do fine without it. But telling you if your data is safe should be an expected feature for a general purpose FS.
pizza234 9y ago
I take you intended "modern" (eg. data checksumming, and maybe volume management)? It's hard not to qualify ext4 as "decent".
- tjoff 9y ago
  "Modern" would have been suitable a decade ago. The current state of filesystems on Linux is inexcusable.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    If you’re gonna say something is out of date, at least say what could be better.
    - tjoff 9y ago
      That is fairly obvious isn't it? Copy on write and checksumming are two basics. And on top of CoW you can get snapshots (which in turn helps with backups, etc. etc.).
      - tscs37 9y ago
        Not everyone needs copy on write and checksumming, it doesn't make sense to waste CPU cycles on checksums when the use case doesn't require it. ext4 is a perfectly fine filesystem for most desktop users and a wide range of servers simply by not being ZFS. If you need CoW and checksumming, there is btrfs too, which is natively supported on Linux and IMO fine if you're only on a single disk or use md or LVM for RAID. It's quite amusing tbh when people think that a filesystem needs to do everything.
        tjoff 9y ago
        Checksumming is free on todays CPUs, you could use your argument agains filesystem journaling as well. But for some reason you are not proposing using ext2? Why not? Why waste clock cycles on a journal when you might not need it? This truly is a non-issue but in very exceptional circumstances, and in such you don't use a general purpose filesystem anyway. Checksumming and snapshots etc. give substantial game-changing improvements to the whole system. More than a journaling filesystem ever did. They also provide means as to vastly simplify other tasks. Roll-back last system-wide update? Done. Backup consistency? Free and vastly simplified. I disagree, these are properties that are expected of any decent general purpose filesystem. If you fall into a niche that doesn't, fine, use one of the many alternatives. But this should be the default for all user-facing machines as well as servers.

Problem is, Linux does not have any decent general purpose filesystem. That is why people risk their data using an untested hack.

by tjoff 9y ago

Problem is, Linux does not have any decent general purpose filesystem. That is why people risk their data using an untested hack.

anc84 9y ago

What is not decent about ext4 as general purpose FS?

laumars 9y ago
ext4 is fine for most people but it's not comparable to ZFS. Even ZFS aside, I've been unconvinced by ext4 these days and have starting using XFS on all new Linux server builds.
- anc84 9y ago
  So it IS a decent general purpose FS. ;)
  - laumars 9y ago
    I think there's two incompatible arguements going on here: 1. Is ext4 a decent general purpose file system? 2. Is ext4 a decent alternative or comparable to ZFS? My answers to those questions would be: 1. It's an "acceptable" general purpose file system but it's really starting to fall behind the competition. When I see comments like how people don't need features like snapshots et al I'm reminded about just how popular Windows Shadow Copy is. Ok that is a service rather than a file system feature but it shows that there is a demand for desktops to have this feature. Checksuming is another example - it's practically free service these days as CPUs have hardware extensions for popular checksum hashes. So the argument is akin to saying "why do we need file system journaling"; sure you don't need them but you're massively grateful when you do have them and your consumer hardware throws it's inevitable hissyfit. In my opinion Linux really does need to up its game. Ext4 feels almost stuck in time when compares to the likes of XFS which is years older than ext and yet they're working on snapshotting. Then you have really forward thinking file systems like what DragonflyBSD have been working on. They understand the need for better resilience of our data on desktops due to ever expanding storage capacities and HAMMERFS looks extremely exciting as a result. So to get back to your question. Yes ext4 is acceptable for most people, but is acceptable really good enough? Maybe we should invest more time and energy into XFS? 2. Is ext4 a decent alternative or comparable to ZFS? Simply put, no.
Dylan16807 9y ago
* stores data - yes * handles crashes - yes * detects corruption - no I'd want all three for a general purpose FS. Snapshotting is nice but it's complex and expensive, and you can do fine without it. But telling you if your data is safe should be an expected feature for a general purpose FS.

pizza234 9y ago

I take you intended "modern" (eg. data checksumming, and maybe volume management)? It's hard not to qualify ext4 as "decent".

tjoff 9y ago
"Modern" would have been suitable a decade ago. The current state of filesystems on Linux is inexcusable.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  If you’re gonna say something is out of date, at least say what could be better.
  - tjoff 9y ago
    That is fairly obvious isn't it? Copy on write and checksumming are two basics. And on top of CoW you can get snapshots (which in turn helps with backups, etc. etc.).
    - tscs37 9y ago
      Not everyone needs copy on write and checksumming, it doesn't make sense to waste CPU cycles on checksums when the use case doesn't require it. ext4 is a perfectly fine filesystem for most desktop users and a wide range of servers simply by not being ZFS. If you need CoW and checksumming, there is btrfs too, which is natively supported on Linux and IMO fine if you're only on a single disk or use md or LVM for RAID. It's quite amusing tbh when people think that a filesystem needs to do everything.
      - tjoff 9y ago
        Checksumming is free on todays CPUs, you could use your argument agains filesystem journaling as well. But for some reason you are not proposing using ext2? Why not? Why waste clock cycles on a journal when you might not need it? This truly is a non-issue but in very exceptional circumstances, and in such you don't use a general purpose filesystem anyway. Checksumming and snapshots etc. give substantial game-changing improvements to the whole system. More than a journaling filesystem ever did. They also provide means as to vastly simplify other tasks. Roll-back last system-wide update? Done. Backup consistency? Free and vastly simplified. I disagree, these are properties that are expected of any decent general purpose filesystem. If you fall into a niche that doesn't, fine, use one of the many alternatives. But this should be the default for all user-facing machines as well as servers.