Linux

7114 readers

227 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Fedora 42 installer defaults to btrfs? What's everyone's opinion or experience on that? (slrpnk.net)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Not a tech support question, I'm just curious. I recently installed it. Everything is working great, feels like I got a whole new laptop compared to my previous setup. I haven't tried out any of btrfs's unique features, so I dunno, nothing special I can report about it. Coming from Debian I was just surprized by how different Fedoras installer defaults are. Do you agree with btrfs being a default option?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

On Fedora, Btrfs has been the default for years now iirc. It's modern and rock solid too (as long as you avoid Raid 5/6) and has some features I can't live without nowadays:

Copy-on-write (prevents file duplication)
Snapshots (your systems broke? most easy rollback you will ever experience is with Btrfs in combination with Timeshift)
on-the-fly compression (I'd recommend "--compression-force=zstd:3" as a mount option. Last I checked Fedora defaulted to using the lowest compression level, which is not the Btrfs default, making you lose some gains. FYI about the "force": btrfs by default checks whether a file is compressible or not, this is redundant with zstd, which does the same thing but quite a bit faster AFAIK)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

CoW also prevents corrupt files in the case of power loss