Out of curiosity I have tried BTRFS (still unstable so I can't really expect to be able to use it) and noticed that the read speed is about 150% of ext4 - while write speed is comparable. which btw you should put in here then as well. As Microsoft makes more progress with ReFS on Windows 11, Linux is also getting performance optimizations and improvements on some of its major file systems, namely, F2FS, Btrfs, and EXT4. The archlinux article Solid State Drives says in the section Choice of Filesystem:. Resizing (growing) is possible with btrfs and xfs. 0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. #6. Btrfs vs. has built-in support for snapshots - useful for both backups and “testing out” scripts. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. 6. The XFS supports more file sizes and greater file or partition sizes. ago. Ext4 comes up with some new and improved features such as: Extent-based. btrfs/ext4 volume on top of a ZFS zvol. I've also heard that LVM snapshots can. btrfs 可以支援 snapshot, 但 ext4 不行, 如果一開始就採用 ext4, 日後如果要使用 snapshot 功能, 必須將 NAS 的資料備份出來, 重新 format 成 btrfs 格式. List of archive formats. Ext4 and Btrfs Filesystems are pretty much well known for their performance in Linux environments. for the home lab you can use ext4 it is fast an flexible: grow and shrink are supported. a lot of btrfs' perception of 'breaking' is actually due to checksums (correctly) finding fault on a users data and (correctly) not allowing mounting of the filesystem until it's fixed. Since btrfs does not work like a normal partition, but uses volumes and subvolumes per default on fedora, you may see other challenges. Depends on what you're looking for. Which is better largely depends on opinion. El sistema de archivos es mayor de 2 TiB con inodos de 512 bytes. El tipo de archivo Ext4 admite tamaños de partición de hasta 1 EiB (Exibyte). Depends on the application. Ahh…zfs is older than both ext4 and btrfs being released in 2006. ext4 is an "advanced" version of ext3 with various improvements, basically an upgrade to the ext3 format. I think the consensus these days is it’s good for single drive and raid 1. Use XFS for your array drives and Btrfs for your cache pool. While options like XFS and ZFS aren’t nearly as famous, there are certain cases where you should consider making them the file system of choice. I currently have a ds1819+, currently, i have 8 x 4tb (5400rpm) 32G of ram 2x2tb nvme cachethe system is super fragmented and super slow synology says that i need to backup everything and recreate the volume. Ext4 focuses on providing a reliable and stable file system with good performance. 0, and is just some quality-of-life command line. Btrfs and Ext4 are Linux file systems but are extremely. Btrfs is a more modern file system, introduced in 2007. but for the shared servers with many users you might consider xfs for the parallel IO and number of files. They both use delayed allocation to achieve file fragmentation while both do not support mounted snapshots. checksum verification on each file. For close to ZFS feature parity but much younger, BTRFS. Btrfs would be adding features you most likely don't need. However, if you are looking for a. As a last resort, you could try btrfs-convert-n. ) TL, DR: All 3 major next gen CoW file systems have their advantages and drawbacks, and I figure integrating them into my workflow is the only way to fairly evaluate them see how they work for myself. The Ext4 file system is mainly used on Linux, while the NTFS file system is commonly used on Windows, and the HFS+ file system is suitable for macOS. Btrfs vs Ext4. Add to Chrome Add to Edge Add to Firefox Add to Opera Add to Brave Add to Safari. XFS vs. The maximum partition size of a btrfs file system is 16 exbibytes, and the maximum file size is also 16 exbibytes. ) XFS. - chống phân mảnh dữ liệu nhanh chóng. But EXT4 is mature, rock solid, and completely reliable, and the standard for most of the linux world. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. Offizieller Beitrag. We will determine which one is the best ZFS, BTRFS, and EXT4. If your think you don’t need btrfs style backups, or you run timeshift on ext4 then stick with it. ZFS likes eating RAM. 我们主要讨论Linux中主流的三个文件系统：Ext4、XFS以及Btrfs的功能特点 ext4 文件系统由 ext3 文件系统改进而来，而后者又是从 ext2 文件系统改进而来。 虽然 ext4 文件系统已经非常稳定，是过去几年中绝大部分发行版的默认选择，但它是基于陈旧的代码开发而来。I've compiled in tmpfs for over a decade now. Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: FreeBSD ZFS vs. What concerns me is reports that its heavier on ssd's due to all the extra metadata tracking etc. Out of Ext4 or btrfs, I would chose btrfs with the snapshots. Running AIO-Stress on the Western Digital VelociRaptor was yielding speeds not technically possible for the Serial ATA 3. In my second round I made setups with btrfs on the nvme SSD and luks+btrfs on 2TB HDD as RAID1. , not available on the GUI for now) that allows choosing a file system from a white list, defaulting to ext4. ZFS is an advanced filesystem and many of its features focus mainly on reliability. On that list, only xfs is older. Linux 5. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. XFS back in the 2. With 4K random reads by FIO, the SATA/USB performance was flat across the. When using btrfs with mergerfs and will warn you do not use drive multiplexers with it. Ext4 比 Btrfs 更穩定嗎？ 儘管在撰寫本文時 Btrfs 缺乏穩定性和. That being said, it is meant as a temporary solution to migrate data to a native Unix file system, such as ZFS or UFS. BTW, transparent compression can offset much of the performance penalty between using a fs like btrfs or ZFS and a more traditional fs like ext4 or xfs, depending on your workload. EXT4 is just a file system, as NTFS is - it doesn't really do anything for a NAS and would require either hardware or software to add some flavor. For zfs there is a plugin. openZFS would be another great option, except for licensing issues. sandoxe • 4 yr. Ceph's recommendation for the choice of filesystem is between btrfs and XFS. I've been running btrfs quite a while now, with one filesystem crash after a power failure. Is XFS better than btrfs? September 30, 2023 by Garry. The only time there were issues was when my RAM sticks went bad and btrfs detected it and put my FS into read-only mode to prevent corruption. NTFS. Never use ReiserFS on a new system and if you are currently using it, consider converting it to XFS or Btrfs. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. Btrfs come with compression algorithms present in the filesystem, allowing data to be compressed at the filesystem level right when written to the system. I understand if I use zfs/btrfs i will miss out on any data redundancy features but maybe pick up some added features like better consistency, snapshots, ect or should I just stick with ext4. Perhaps btrfs is much better for SSDs, but in oldschool HDDs I. Btrfs is slower, especially on non-SSDs, because of CoW, but has a whole lot more going on under the hood in way of features and data integrity. Otherwise use BTRFS. Plus, XFS is baked in with most Linux distributions so you get that added bonus To answer your question, however, if ext4 and btrfs were the only two filesystems, I would choose ext4 because btrfs has been making headlines about courrpting people's data and I've used ext4 with no issue. Mar 14, 2012. Example: Dropbox is hard-coded to use ext4, so will refuse to work on ZFS and BTRFS. It is the default file system in RHEL 6, Debian 7, Ubuntu 18 and so on. The major difference between ext4 and XFS file systems is that the ext4 file system works better for fewer size files (single write/read thread) while the XFS works more efficiently. All my systems (4) have been using BTRFS for some time now without any issues. 2. Btrfs es mucho más rápido de lo que crees basándote en esos benchmarks, ya que no se ajustan a tu caso de uso. Four years later, Rodeh et al. EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind that at 52MB/s and then ZFS came in at 46MB/s. Compared to classic RAID1, modern FS have two other advantages: - RAID1 is whole device. Some think of the B-tree file system as a better, more modern alternative to ext4. With all of the major file-systems seeing clean-up work during the Linux 4. Sun Microsystems originally created it as part of its Solaris operating system. zfs not. Does that mean that if I'm using btrfs snapshots, it will not save parity data for any snapshots other than the current state of the drive, that it will only save parity data for one snapshot other than the current state of the drive, or that it will fail entirely?Generally, would go with btrfs. 0 NVMe SSD was used for the benchmarking of these file-systems in different desktop use-cases. btrfs is also slower in some benchmarks but I very much doubt thats visible in normal use. BTRFS VS EXT4 performance in Raid 1. Considering that btrfs will be able to span over multiple hard drives, it's a good thing that it supports 16 times more drive space than ext4. Zu diesen gehören eine integrierte RAID-Funktionalität, ein inkludierter Volume Manager und die Unterstützung von Dateisystemen bis 16EiB. But I would still refrain from using it on the deck due to the case folding trouble. To have best performance use noatime mount option, and I also recommend to use mount option. Also, server raid originally md raid5 (4x4TB NAS drives) with XFS had taken all day to build, but creating btrfs-raid10 was seconds. The Slant team built an AI & it’s awesome Find the best product instantly. ZFS is great but heavy/complex, and lack of block pointer rewrite can be painful. I've also ran some experiments on some older machines with slow IDE drives, once while installing a distro with ext4, and once with btrfs+zstd as root. 2. This feature allows for increased capacity and reliability. BTRFS has a number of issues with optimizations (mostly minor) and Problems with Scrubbing and Raid56. XFS, EXT4, and BTRFS are file systems commonly used in Linux-based operating systems. Puedes crear hasta 264 archivos en un sistema Btrfs. BTRFS have some fancy features, and could help you manage your disk better in some automation-future-proof way. If you think that you need the advanced features. So if you have a SSD and care about the wear of that then. 500GB HDD formatted as NTFS for luks containers. And ext3. Till the moment, the ext4 seems to be a better choice on the desktop system since it is presented as a default file system, as well as it is faster than the btrfs when transferring files. . Linux 5. However, the performance of ZFS on FreeBSD/PC-BSD 8. ext4 can claim historical stability, while the consumer advantage of btrfs is snapshots (the ease of. So I moved everything off of it and formatted it into XFS and ate the 0,5% space loss for peace of mind. Example 2: ZFS has licensing issues to Distribution-wide support is spotty. 하지만 리소스 문제나 호환성 등을 생각한다면 EXT4도 포기할 수 없죠. Ability to shrink filesystem. It’s an improved version of the older Ext3 file system that includes a lot of great features, including ones for Solid State Drives (SSDS). wbeater • 3 yr. It is destined to be replaced by Btrfs as the default Linux filesystem. XFS still has some reliability issues, but could be good for a large data store where speed matters but rare data loss (e. Compared to ext4, XFS has unlimited inode allocation, advanced allocation hinting (if you need it) and, in recent version, reflink support (but they need to be explicitly enabled in. Ext4 seems better suited for lower-spec configurations although it will work just fine on faster ones as well, and performance-wise still better than btrfs in most cases. We currently recommend XFS for production deployments. Hi, I think BTRFS is actually faster then ZFS on Linux. For a while, MySQL (not Maria DB) had performance issues on XFS with default settings, but even that is a thing of the past. The 3TB HDD are ext4. use ZFS only w/ ECC RAM. Various internet sources suggest that XFS is faster and better, but taking into account that they also suggest that EXT4 is. Although both ext4 and XFS are excellent at what they do, neither are suited to some of today’s more complex storage challenges. Worthy mentions on the functionality front include: Copy-on-write: Btrfs uses copy-on-write to create system snapshots without duplicating data and wasting space. Though personally I'd still go with ext4 primarily because despite recognizing some potential benefits of btrfs, I really don't see them as important for how I use my computers. For pure data storage, however, the btrfs is the winner over the ext4, but time still will tell. 1. Out of curiosity I have tried BTRFS (still unstable so I can't really expect to be able to use it) and noticed that the read speed is about 150% of ext4 - while write speed. ago. EXT4 being the “safer” choice of the two, it is by the most commonly used FS in linux based systems, and most applications are developed and tested on EXT4. Linux File System Comparison: XFS vs. g. Since btrfs doesn't have something comparable to the ZVOL the best you can do is use subvolumes which must always use the btrfs file system. 여러 가지의 HDD를 장착하여 사용을 하신다면 사진이나 중요한 자료들을 저장하는 드라이브에는. Though not as large of a difference when comparing to an SD card. As mentioned above, when picking between Btrfs vs. For example it's xfsdump/xfsrestore for xfs, dump/restore for ext2/3/4. I'll be going RAID 6. 5. Because ext4 can't beat btrfs when it comes to snapshot/delete. . Using Btrfs, just expanding a zip file and trying to immediately enter that new expanded folder in Nautilus, I am presented with a “busy” spinning graphic as Nautilus is preparing to display the new folder contents. F2FS, XFS, ext4, zfs, btrfs, ntfs, etc. But they come with the smallest set of features compared to newer filesystems. to get a significantly faster result than xfs. If it is only about reliability and you're in doubt, go with ext4, imho. Uma das decisões que você tem que tomar quando vai instalar qualquer distro Linux é o Sistema de arquivos do Linux! São vários para escolher, EXT4, XFS e BTR. More uniquely, checksumming can detect errors in the data itself. 29 release of the Linux kernel. Btrfs 與 EXT4 常見問題解答. The btrfs backup multi-disk arrangement, of different disk sizes in single mode was for me a trial of btrfs. So please enlighten me, where is btrfs better and where is it worse or just significantly different than ZFS. . Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. F2FS With Linux 4. They both use delayed allocation to achieve file. I have a raid 1 setup on dual 3. This might lead one to move to btrfs on the SMR disk. Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. Btrfs (pronounced as Butter FS, Better FS, or B-Tree FS) Considering that the btrfs will be able for spanning over the multiple hard drives, it is a very good poit that it can support 16 times more drive space than the ext4. As others have said, btrfs is newer and offers a few advanced features for backups (snapshots) and data integrity. There are two ways this can be done. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4,Sure, BtrFS has its benefits and novel features, but "has never once failed me in 10+ years" is an incredibly strong reliability trend that I'd be hesitant to trade for those, especially in a piece of my infrastructure where a single failure could potentially cause massive loss of data and subsequent time spent recovering from backups/etc. In a significant data corruption, Ext2 and Ext3 file systems are more possible and easy to recover data due to their data redundancy compared with Ext4. Die Benchmark-Testergebnisse zeigten, dass BTRFS etwas niedrigere Lese- und Schreibgeschwindigkeiten als EXT4 hatte. removes the need for LVM and thus eliminates 1 layer for filesystem-ing (if that’s a word) On top of that, in 2008, the principal developer of EXT3 and. We may have lengthy talk on ext vs XFS vs f2fs and btrfs vs zfs and there are many more points to be mentioned, but for regular users. BTRFS is good for rotational drives too, but it's still not fully mature and I'm hesitant to recommend it because of previous issues with data. But… Some different plus for BTRFS Backup is about data safety. It's a mature filesystem and offers online defragmentation and can. Moreover, the ext4 is more beneficial when the. 0 mainline kernel and using the stock mount options. Use whatever your distro vendor supports: on Redhat and spinoffs, use XFS+LVM (the latter gives you snapshotting capabilities today;: XFS itself will receive them in the medium term), on Suse use BTRFS. BtrFS RAID 6 implementation is "mostly working", see here:As some of you likely know, I have a favorable view of ZFS and especially of MySQL on ZFS. Back when Bcachefs debuted in 2015 I ran some initial. In terms of XFS vs Ext4, XFS is superior to Ext4 in the following. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. Ext4 for Synology NAS devices, most users should pick Btrfs for the data integrity benefits that it provides. Main features: Data protection features, including snapshot, replication, and point-in-time recovery. I'd stick with safer file systems like XFS, JFS, EXT4, or imported ZFSOnLinux. User quotas for each shared folder. This is useful, though far less complete than the block-by-block checksums of btrfs and ZFS. Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. But I was more talking to the XFS vs EXT4 comparison. And you might just as well use EXT4. Advantages of Btrfs over Ext4. However ZFS does come at one major downside, it needs more resources in just about every way one can imagine, ZFS is best with more disks, more RAM, more CPU, more Bandwidth, more SSD’s for caching…. I'm not asking "What is the best filesystem?"—There is no such thing as 'the. But as some users found out, automatic snapshot (at the time it was first released) ate disk space on single user installations. ZFS can also send and receive file system snapshots, a process which allows users to optimize their disk space. 2. 88. My recommendation of that list would be XFS. BTRFS has (by far) the better ecosystem of tools and utilities. Linux vs. misleading. Difference between Ext4 vs Btrfs filesystems on Linux. Where “file-sparse” is the file name, and the number at the end is the size that can be set in bytes, megabytes, and so on. It was also during a power outage, and yes I should have had that. Your gaming performance shouldn't be affected by either, since games are mostly just reads anyways. Hardwareseitig gibt es bei Btrfs jedoch Ausnahmen. Ability to create large volumes of up to 1 PB 1. This allows you to do an in-place conversion of unmounted (offline) file systems,. BTRFS bietet, mal abgesehen von der Möglichkeit einer Inline Deduplizierung, beinahe alle Features von ZFS. ext4 vs NTFS. I hear zfs is good too. Hi I have used BTRFS for the first time since March 2023 on my internal archives directory. 7. Ext4 te permite crear un máximo de 232 archivos. So it has no barring. Same could be said of reads, but if you have a TON of memory in the server that's greatly mitigated and work well. 1. Btrfs supports RAID 0, 1, 10, 5, and 6, while ZFS supports various RAID-Z levels (RAID-Z, RAID-Z2, and RAID-Z3). Ext4 is probably the final evolution of the ext filesystem (which started with ext, then ext2, ext3, and now ext4). Btrfs vs. /boot/efi has to be FAT32 (assuming you are using it as the ESP and not just adding partitions extra partitions under /boot to test how robust the boot sequence is). Performance: Ext4 performs better in everyday tasks and is faster for small file writes. 8 snapshot as of last week. 10 4. As well as ext4. ZFS is faster than ext4, and is a great filesystem candidate for boot partitions! I would go with ZFS, and not look back. You can sometimes run into bugs and issues if your home directory is partitioned in XFS, BTRFS, or ZFS. In this episode of the CyberGizmo I benchmark the 4 filesystems chosen by Phoronix for his testing and use my own workloads to compare and contrast them. This section highlights the differences when using or administering an XFS file system. I see that it says multiple btrfs snapshots are not supported. For example btrfs supports transparent file compression. Here, you can use either command: dd, or truncate. @Falzo said: I think in general the comparison is a bit. The two primary reasons I use btrfs are easy to setup and maintain RAID arrays, and. Nowadays btrfs is very stable and the tools to recover from fs corruption have been getting much better as well. BTRFS solves all the problems I had so far: supports online resizing - both extending and shrinking. Key Points: ZFS stands for Zettabyte filesystem. If you have a NAS or Home server, BTRFS or XFS can offer benefits but then you'll have to do some extensive reading first. The supported size of the filesystem may vary depend on Linux distribution versions. ext4 can claim historical stability, while the consumer advantage of btrfs is snapshots (the ease of subvolumes is nice too, rather than having to partition). XFS does not require extensive reading. However, we also must admit that Btrfs has many advantages that Ext4 doesn’t have, for example: 8. For pure data storage, however, the btrfs is the winner over the ext4, but time still will tell. Ext4 is the fourth version of the Ext(Extended) File System for Linux and is probably the most well-known file system for Linux out there. EXT4 is functional and is considered more stable. And generally, files that arent compressible, wont be forcefully compressed. The four hard drives used for testing were 6TB Seagate IronWolf NAS (ST6000VN0033. Ext4 was designed with spinning drives in mind but as SSDs are fundamentally different, an SSD optimized file system can help. BTRFS系统性能最差，下面是去掉该系统其它3种的对比. Maybe. For example, in the case of Btrfs, SATA SSDs are showing around a 10%. 1 million iops for ext4, right in line with the spec of the drive times 2,. Small to Medium Enterprises: While ext3 suffices for businesses with modest data needs, scalability visionaries would do well considering ext4. ”. Seriously, fuck them. I have fsck enabled via fstab and it checked the fs at boot (Last checked: Thu Nov 4 07:58:57 2021) which maybe took 5 - 10 minutes, did not stop exact time though. It is the default file system in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. 6,861. 6. Reasons why I avoided btrfs:Increased Performance of ext4 vs. Softwareseitig werden die Dateisysteme ext4 und Btrfs generell ab Diskstation Manager (DSM) 6. 17現在、Ext4と比べ特にBtrfsが遅かったりはしない。SSD上の動作であればむしろ有利なくらいだ。 つまり、Ext4のほうが速く、Btrfsが遅いカーネルもある。 例を示そう。 Linux5. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. Even after then I was able to transfer data out of the filesystem. I think in many ways btrfs is the better filesystem, but I seem to have noticed that it takes longer to copy data than on ext4. Very much depends if you want to go JBOD style or have a RAID-type-style though. As far as I know, the 4k block size is important for such webgui, it makes it faster to open sites (for ex. XFS and btrfs are two advanced file systems for Linux that offer significant improvements over ext4. All have pros and cons. That one is solid and mature. NTFS and FAT are known in Windows environments. I've seen benchmarks (eg: this one) that put btrfs considerably slower than ext4. Users are encouraged to read the Btrfs article for more info. xfs/. Tùy chọn mặc. you don't have to think about what you're doing because it's what. Example: Dropbox is hard-coded to use ext4, so will refuse to work on ZFS and BTRFS. Or btrfs, which is making some serious headway again with it becoming the default filesystem for Fedora. The flexibility of ext4 and BTRFS in that you can easily resize them is way too important to give up. - Tạo và lưu trữ snapshot. Both are suitable for everyday use, but it's worth noting that. . 5：创建和删除大量文件（文件量一定）. While it is possible to migrate from ext4 to XFS, it. Ext4 is built on older technology, so it lacks modern file-system features found in systems like E2FS and BtrFS. But timeshift reports (maybe due to different sizes of the combined btrfs) as reported in my initial. Viewed 6k times. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 IOPS capability. After deciding to use LVM2 as volumemanager on our servers there was also the wish for an online resizeable filesystem. Ext4 provides more flexibility in terms of data storage. Linux 4. 7 star rating. also XFS has been recommended by many for MySQL/MariaDB for some time. because it spans multiple partitions, it's less likely to fill up your hard drive. Not only does both file systems feature a more robust data assurances then XFS (the mature fsck for Ext4 and checksums and data. BTRFS subvolumes and the way a distro like Opensuse handles it, by using subvolumes and snapshotting on upgrades, is really nice. EXT4 is better for small files and day to day use. My current setup is /@ for the rootfs, /@home for home dir, works great. Although XFS is older than the latest version of the Ext series, there have been notable differences. . To be clear, I am using RAID0 with two SSDs with strip size of 256Kb. 8 snapshot as of last week. Reliable! I used it in Rsync mode as only my backup disk is btrfs, everything else was ext4 or XFS. , a really large number of processes all writing to the filesystem at once). XFS as a similar featureset filesystem manages around 99. We may have lengthy talk on ext vs XFS vs f2fs and btrfs vs zfs and there are many more points to be mentioned, but for regular users. Personally I run btrfs on all my Linux devices, some of them with half-decade old installations of Arch and they've all performed admirably. A. ago. Language: Format: Language and Page Formatting Options. Snapshot support. You can hot swap drives without rebooting, remove failed drives, swap in a larger drive and remove the smaller one, all without preparing ahead of time to do so. After reading a few articles I decided to use JFS in favour of XFS. Con: rumor has it that it is slower than ext3, the fsync dataloss soap. Journaling ensures file system integrity after system crashes (for example, due to power outages) by keeping a record of file system. Let’s talk about the advantages Btrfs boasts over the traditional and more popular ext4 filesystem. EXT4 and XFS show similarities in some features. 10. This is equivalent to specifying -m single on the command. XFS. Ability to shrink filesystem. A daily snapshot of Ubuntu 19. I saw that Fedora is now using Btrfs filesystem by default. With the noatime option, the access timestamps on the filesystem are not updated. The PostgreSQL database server ran well particularly on EXT4 and XFS while F2FS on the USB 3. But it's slow when used with fsync -intensive programs such as dpkg (I know eatmydata and the crappy apt-btrfs-snapshot programs) and I won't setup a. Regarding filesystems. In Windows NTFS is used, while in Mac OS it is HFS, perhaps these will sound familiar to you, especially the typical FAT or its variants for. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. Using multiple drives of varying sizes created a luks1 encrypted ‘single’ data and dup meta volume. I switched from ext4 to btrfs a couple of years ago. 04 Disco Dingo was running on the Threadripper setup while using the Linux Git kernel from the mainline PPA. If you use Debian, Ubuntu, or Fedora Workstation, the installer defaults to ext4. both are great choices, but for me the more generally useful choice is BTRFS. B：EXT3性能最好，如果软件大量的随机寻址的话这个文件系统性能更好. Things like snapshots, copy-on-write, checksums and more. BTRFS hatte auch etwas höhere Latenz als EXT4, was bedeutet, dass es länger dauerte, bis Dateien auf dem Dateisystem zugegriffen werden konnten. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. It has been tried and tested, it is no doubt a solid and stable filesystem.