In the end this is all that matters.
Everything else is a matter of convenience. At worst, if you use Btrfs instead of ext4 you may expect to restore the backup slightly more often. But in both cases, you need a backup, you can’t rely on a single copy, no matter what filesystem you use.
Not universally, it depends what you are replicating. In the case of btrfs snapshots, you have the history of snapshots in the target so you can recover a file if it becomes physically or logically corrupted. In this case, we aren’t replicating the entire state of the filesystem, just the snapshot itself. That is what makes snapshot replication so interesting.
Of course, doing both is always a best practice.
It’s because ZFS is not part of the installer. If not, I would use it. CachyOS has it in Calamares and built into the kernels as well.
You made me curious. I just installed cachyos in a vm. And indeed it supports zfs right from the start.
This is how it looks after installation:
❯ zfs list -r
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
zpcachyos 4.22G 24.4G 96K none
zpcachyos/ROOT 4.22G 24.4G 96K none
zpcachyos/ROOT/cos 4.22G 24.4G 96K none
zpcachyos/ROOT/cos/home 33.9M 24.4G 33.9M /home
zpcachyos/ROOT/cos/root 3.13G 24.4G 3.13G /
zpcachyos/ROOT/cos/varcache 1.06G 24.4G 1.06G /var/cache
zpcachyos/ROOT/cos/varlog 320K 24.4G 320K /var/log
Very nice!
Yes, plus, systemd-boot instead Grub
ZFS is looking more interesting
Another plus.
totally agree, timeshift itself is not reliable enough to compete
or disregard
conventional file backups.
So Clonezilla or Rescuezilla may be another option regardless of which fs you have.
Ext4 has remained 10% ahead of its rival btrfs.
I will abandon this distro the moment [b]only[b] “butter-forksakes” becomes the only choice. It’s garbage. It’s the future? Meh I don’t care, I could be dead in the future. It could be the next to suffer after “reiserfs”, I hope. Fedora forced it down my throat but not any longer. Threw away Void Linux also, not caring what good it had, due to the long updates in the last three weeks I’ve used it. “ext4” only for me.
… I hope Knoppix is updated soon, had to erase it the moment I read about deprecation of the file system it “liked” to use and given its inflexibility about it.
I didn’t actually vote, don’t believe in such vain participation.
Btrfs is not garbage. I don’t think it should be the default and most likely won’t be either. But it is a viable option for those who want to use it. I think the current setup is fine with ext4 as the default and other file systems as options.
Btrfs is good, but most people use it because of the wrong reasons. Most btrfs users would be better served with ext4.
Some people take full advantage of advanced features of btrfs. That’s great, more power to them. But most btrfs users are like wayland users: they use it because it is fashionable, some idiot on youtube told them btrfs is better, but they couldn’t say why it is better if their life depended on it. 
I think btrfs’s advantages have been discussed in this thread.
As well as disadvantages…Not only in that thread 
It seems personal choice plays a big part.
As a side note, I researched the two file systems and even the dev of ext4 said btrfs is a better direction. I would look up the quote for you, but my search engine is broken
I use the notNTFS filesystem. It’s pretty fashionable these days.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I don’t think that my question has already been answered. I have my data disk (6 TB HDD, 5400 rpm) so far always run with ext 4. Of all the file systems that have been talked about here, is there one that would be better suited for this? My system is on an SSD, now with Btrfs. Would Btrfs also be good for the data HDD?
Edit: typo
