is bfrs better

Help for Current Versions of MX
When asking for help, use Quick System Info from MX Tools. It will be properly formatted using the following steps.
1. Click on Quick System Info in MX Tools
2. Right click in your post and paste.
Message
Author
User avatar
DukeComposed
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:57 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#11 Post by DukeComposed »

MXNewFan wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:27 pm while I was at it, what the heck is Reiser used for. Holy cow.
ReiserFS is being taken out of the Linux kernel entirely in 2025, so it's honestly nothing you should be paying any attention to whatsoever unless you have a genuine interest in the history of file systems.

MXNewFan
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2022 4:12 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#12 Post by MXNewFan »

Yeah, I learned about that today but thanks for letting me know. As far as file systems, I'd never given them much thought aside from what an OS preferred. The history on this one was out-of-the-park. But also it sparked curiosity and interest file systems having learned they have far more capability than just acting like a stencil to imprint data in a particular way. I can think of some major applications made possible by certain architecture.

User avatar
DukeComposed
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:57 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#13 Post by DukeComposed »

MXNewFan wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:35 pm But also it sparked curiosity and interest file systems having learned they have far more capability than just acting like a stencil to imprint data in a particular way. I can think of some major applications made possible by certain architecture.
At the end of the day, all a file system really needs to do is serve as an abstraction between your software and your data. While it's true that some file systems have specific advantages and disadvantages in certain use cases, ext4 is for the most part a pretty decent general purpose FS. If there were something drastically wrong with ext4, a lot of people would be impacted by it, and that just doesn't happen very often.

This leads us back to my original question. Is btrfs better than ext4? Better for what? It's certainly not more widely adopted than ext4 and doesn't have as much technical support behind it as ext4. So I have to assume OP asked the question because the presence of a choice created the fallacy of believing that choice has an obviously right or wrong answer.

Is btrfs better? The answer is that the MX install defaults to ext4 for good reasons and you shouldn't worry about it too much until you're ready to ask a more specific question.

User avatar
AK-47
Developer
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:04 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#14 Post by AK-47 »

sisqonrw wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 12:57 pm Hi have have installed MX Linux new on my notebook. but on a ext4 partition.
is bfrs better?
i am at the beginning. i can install MX-Linux new on a bfrs partion.
thanks
The installer doesn't have support for bfrs, and I believe bfrs support isn't even in the kernel.
MXNewFan wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:27 pm The "What is bfrs?" question hit me today too ...
Brominated flame retardants
DukeComposed wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:09 pmReiserFS is being taken out of the Linux kernel entirely in 2025, so it's honestly nothing you should be paying any attention to whatsoever unless you have a genuine interest in the history of file systems.
ReiserFS support was removed from the installer 2 years ago, back when they first marked it as deprecated.

User avatar
DukeComposed
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:57 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#15 Post by DukeComposed »

AK-47 wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 6:59 pm ReiserFS support was removed from the installer 2 years ago, back when they first marked it as deprecated.
Good.

MXNewFan
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2022 4:12 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#16 Post by MXNewFan »

Reiser (maybe FS but I doubt it) is on my well preserved old KNOPPIX usb and maybe on an old Manjaro. From what Reiser wrote in his letter it needed new direction & to be overhauled.

sisqonrw
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:15 am

Re: is bfrs better

#17 Post by sisqonrw »

backup with timeshift prefer bfrs partition.
is bfrs new?
does it have support for some years?

User avatar
DukeComposed
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:57 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#18 Post by DukeComposed »

sisqonrw wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 3:56 pm backup with timeshift prefer bfrs partition.
is bfrs new?
does it have support for some years?
Timeshift supports numerous file systems through rsync. There is a btrfs-only feature in Timeshift, but only because btrfs has an integrated snapshot mechanism. This is unrelated to Timeshift. Timeshift works without btrfs snapshots, and btrfs snapshots work without Timeshift.

btrfs is well over a decade old at this point. It landed in the Linux kernel in 2009 and it's still not entirely baked. And "support" is kind of a broad term, you'll have to be more specific. You can always write to the btrfs-users mailing list, but corporate sponsorship of btrfs had been drying up for years. It's been removed as the default file system for a number of distros that once touted it as the next big thing. It was added to RHEL 6 and 7 as an experimental feature, and is absent from RHEL 8 entirely. So "support" is a questionable way to put it. It's there in most kernels. You can run it. But no one says you have to.

sisqonrw
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:15 am

Re: is bfrs better

#19 Post by sisqonrw »

OK thanks. which one do you avoid me?

User avatar
DukeComposed
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:57 pm

Re: is bfrs better

#20 Post by DukeComposed »

sisqonrw wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:16 pm OK thanks. which one do you avoid me?
Beg pardon?

Post Reply

Return to “MX Help”