Oops, I forgt that part. Strike that last comment 
1 Like
Of course it COULD install an EndeavourOS repo version of an AUR package. Hmmmā¦
3 Likes
Iāll admit now that I havenāt read the whole thread, only some of it. Hereās my current take for what itās worth and how I understand it so far. I use ext4 on all my linux installs (all EnOS) but I would like to use zfs. I currently also have a BSD setup on one machine. Itās a simple setup, and has just 8GB of RAM. It seems to run very well so far and it is zfs based. However the main problem seems to be the licensing issues between Linux and BSD. Iām aware there are AUR workarounds but I only use the AUR for installing applications like word processors, note taking, graphics apps, stuff like that. I do not use the AUR to install things that run the core of my system. I stick with Arch-based and approved and tried things. Perhaps one day zfs and Linux will become unified, but at present that does not seem to be the case. A resolution would be nice. If my information and understanding is incorrect then apologies! 
1 Like
zfs-utils and zfs-dkms are in the EOS repos.
1 Like
I was unaware of that. Are they taken from AUR stuff or āhomegrownā?
Thanks @dalto , Iāll have a look at those. Iām fairly familiar with @jonathon 's work but I donāt know Eli. zfs does seem like the possible next gen fs for many reasons. Even Apple were considering it at one time to replace HFS+ but they obviously are now going down their own path as usual. In fact some Mac users did use zfs as an alternative, but I digress! As far as Iām aware though the licenses between the supported Linux filesystems and zfs are still an issue. Linux still does not officially support zfs. However Iām quite happy to check it out on a spare machine at some point. If we donāt experiment and try new things then we donāt progress! 
1 Like
After reading this long reddit thread on Synology with btrfs, would you really call it self-healing?
I get it that zfs is far superior in this regard, but I donāt have the resources (or even a NAS) or even the need for such hardware, so IĆØm sticking with btrfs (what I call the poor manās zfs) 
Self-healing is enabled for only certain RAID levels but not RAID 0. I think it needs data mirroring. BTRFS could compare both data in two different disks (e.g. RAID 1), if both data are identical.
If data is missing or broken in disk A, but the same data is healthy in disk B, then the healthy data (from disk B) will be automatically overwritten to the broken data in disk A. This is called self-healing, but it supports the certain RAID levels, e.g. RAID 1. That is my guess.
If you do not use RAID, self-healing could not help.
But BTRFS correctly detected my corrupt data after copying data in my single disk, my RAM was faulty according to my research. EXT4 did not detect the corrupt data after 9 months purchased the defective RAM. I sent the broken RAM to Memtest+ company that want to improve memtest+, because memtest+ could not detect the error of this RAM.
This is due to checksums btrfs is storing along with the data. If, during a read operation, the checksum does not match the data, brtfs notifies you about data coruption. If this happens on a redundant raid array, btrfs can heal the damage.
ext4 can not do that. xfs has only checksums on metadata. And zfs has checksums like btrfs.
2 Likes
Should I close the poll or keep it running? We have a clear winner, but maybe there is more discussion to be had.
Totally up to you.
2 Likes
BTRFS because reasonably fast Timeshift snapshots (CoW), LUKS full-disk encryption, ZSTD seemless compression and optimized for flash storage, and everything can be controlled by GUIs already.
Using Ext4 only makes sense for people who prefer to use Debian as well. Meaning very long-term stability over any reasonable functionality.
3 Likes
Welcome to the forum @vini.nu and thank for your contribuion.
You get more granular control with BTRFS Assitant
2 Likes
Btrfs Assistant
3 Likes
Given my illiteracy of the command line, I wouldnāt be on Btrfs without it
1 Like
That is a very judgemental statement. Ext4 does what a filesystem should, namely, keep my files safely on the disk and allow access when needed. I have no need for snapshots and compression, and those can both be accomplished on most any Linux filesystem. The firmware on SSDs and NVMeās optimize their use without worrying about filesystems, and the right mount options take care of optimization regardless of filesystem choice. Encryption works on any Linux filesystem. All āreasonableā functionality is available regardless of filesystem choice.
2 Likes
Iām conservative, Iām still using the ext4 filesystem on Linux, and NTFS on Windows, of course.
The implication that functionality of ext4 is somehow deficient is asinine. Ext4 is a perfectly useable and functional filesystem. I would argue it is the best and most logical choice of a filesystem if one does not need advanced features.
Also, there is nothing wrong with using Debian, it is a perfectly useable distro.
4 Likes
ext4 only makes sense for people who want something stable, reliable and zero-maintenance for the most important part of their OS - which is storage of filesā¦
