Worth noting is that it seems the official page is blank (as what I linked to first is an archived wiki page via Linuxsecrets. Teaching me to check my addresses), it seems the actual wiki has been altered and does not mention installing it as / anymore? maybe not a good idea at all?
Mine has that added and i donāt even use f2fs. I have nvme drives and this is in the grub file on my Intel system.
1 Like
Yeah I think they just include it by default now.
2 Likes
Question, genuinely curious, why f2fs?
As far as my own research before my first installs in 2018, Ext4 is simple, reliable, and faster on SSDs than f2fs with equivalent wear and tear while btrfs (as per my research and own questions a few days ago) is about as fast, has both snapshots and compression and has less wear and tear on SSDs compared to f2fs.
1 Like
It would also satisfy the desire for an encrypted / partition.
f2fs in my use is much friendlier than ext4 for flash media, and a bit faster too. This is more pronounced on my Raspberry Pis where thereās a pretty huge difference in how long an SD card will last on f2fs vs ext4. I also like f2fsā transparent compression support on a folder by folder or even filetype basis which iirc only XFS has something similar. You can actually specifically have certain files be compressed with mount options (such as log files)
Also the thing is the system will boot perfectly fine if I manually specify the kernel in Grubās command line and if I hand-make a boot entry.
@BONK Well the reason I use Fscrypt is specifically because I donāt want an encrypted partition, just encrypted files (mainly to have encrypted home folder without having to create a separate home partition and worry about size)
1 Like
I am not doubting your experience or research but as I siad when I was about to install my first Arch, spring 2018, I did extensive research on file systems and all the benchmarks then said Ext4 was actually quicker on solid state and the wear and tear was not worse for an average user (as discussed in another thread there are outlying user cases of course, one member of this forum had an SSD fail within weeks, but his case involves reading and writing several terabytes per 24 hours).
Anyway, I was just curious, but as I said btrfs covers all that you want to do, I think (including transparent compression in 15 different levels and the possibility to do it on a folder basis), with an easier setup.
The information I have been able to find shows somewhat different results - while highlighting just how good ext4 really is as a default choice. Going to Phoronix for benchmarks, produces results summed up as:
f2fs = fastest most often (back and forth with ext4)
ext4 = second most often but always close
xfs = quick, but not as quick asā¦
btrfs = significantly slower, but has significantly more features as well
Hereās some Application startup results:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-50-filesystems&num=4
So the conclusions I came to result in using f2fs for nvme/ssd use - and if the case is worth the hassle of setting it up, ZFS for data. At no time could a case AGAINST ext4 be made - it is most impressive, and stable as well. TO my mind, btrfs is mainly a more accessible (easier to use and set up) set of ZFS features - but as always YMMV with YOUR use case. It is always more work to shift off ext4, and the returns/gains are not big for a home user. Server use Iāll leave to the server pros, although I would lean toward ZFS all the way in the absence of other factors. Of course - my server management days were mainly Novell! 
2 Likes
I would also like to add, as previously mentioned, f2fs is great for Raspberry Pi use. SD cards actually last longer, and this is not just a 1-2 day difference which could be margin of error, itās usually weeks difference. I am convinced this is why Android phones use f2fs by default now. Though ironically they donāt support f2fs formatted SD cardsā¦
3 Likes