Linux Filesystems Comparison
Comments focus on comparing Linux filesystems like ext4, XFS, ZFS, ReiserFS, and others, discussing their reliability, performance issues, data corruption problems, and preferences for modern alternatives.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Without any problems. No other Filesystem i tested has that problem (ext4, XFS, ZFS, NTFS, JFS, Nilfs2)
Why only ext3/4 filesystems? Why not XFS?
Hope he's using a decent modern filesystem (e.g. zfs)
Why can't f2fs be that common file system?
I used XFS for years, until I got tired of it semi-randomly overriding my files with zeros and then found out that apparently this was 'by design', after that I stick with ext3/4 that might not be as fast in some corner cases, but which are just as fast or more with my usage patterns, and which so far has been good at not corrupting any of my data.
Are there any next-gen filesystems in the works? Is this really it?
I've never had a problem with XFS, but I had several silent data corruption issues with ReiserFS after power losses, where I would find the contents of one open file intermixed in another open file. I think such problems have been fixed now, but I ended up losing trust in ReiserFS at that point.
ReiserFS is the only Linux file system that has lost me data. Back in the day it had performance advantages when dealing with small files. But now I'd be very surprised if ext4 isn't superior to it in every conceivable way.
Wow, I thought XFS was dead but apparently it is still supported.
Filesystems were never quite ready for it.