Is there a good reason to use this instead of ext4 as a casual desktop user?

Is there a good reason to use this instead of ext4 as a casual desktop user?

Attached: butters-fs.png (800x510, 10.17K)

Not an expert in any way, but just the fact that you can store more data and resize root partitions WHILE IN USE convinced me.

if you have more than one drive and want them all set up in an array so that you logically only interface with them as one unit at the user level; alongside using features like redundancy or snapshotting
if you have a single drive there's not much point

There is no good reason to use btrfs instead of ext4 as a casual desktop user.

Yes, files are checksummed so u know when bitrot occurs
it has cow so faster copying/less data use
transparent compression

Is bcachefs usable yet?

>store more data
elaborate please, user
>resize root partitions WHILE IN USE
how often do you find yourself doing that?

>two good reasons stated before
>comes along and posts literal fake information
Nice one retard

>store more data
btrfs uses filesystem compression so theoretically you can store more than 100Gb on a 100Gb drive
>how often
As a person with one drive, it's very nice to be able to do it.
I don't do it often because i'm not a distrohopper but it does come in handy from time to time.
ext4 isn't as flexible with that. I'd need a live iso just to resize a partition.

> two irrelevant reasons for a casual user stated before (literally only power users would care)
> reads a correct factual post
> loses their shit
yeah, you're a fucking retard

go back to fixing your computer all day instead of actually get paid to use it. maybe you can go resize your root partition while it's in use and flex on the normies.

Instant copying of gigabytes of data is very nice.

what fixing do i need to do? btrfs just werks

nice deflection, retard

op you should use ext4 just so you have nothing in common with this retard

yeah but it's clear your dumb enough to not gain anything from doing so

normies don't know what a filesystem is

> doesnt respond anything other than ad-hominems
> hurr durr youre a retard

>btrfs uses filesystem compression so theoretically you can store more than 100Gb on a 100Gb drive
that's pretty cool, thanks
>I don't do it often because i'm not a distrohopper but it does come in handy from time to time.
right on. some things are good to have just in case you need them, i suppose.

>>how often do you find yourself doing that?
It came in handy for me just the other day
>boot a live usb to move my os to a bigger ssd
>dd all my shit over
>reboot
>forgot to resize the partition too
>no matter, i can just do it now

I could also imagine it being useful if you're dual booting Windows and want to remove the Windows partition and then reclaim the space.

compression is the biggest selling point for me

I use a ton of btrfs features and love them. My backup server uses btrfs and uses compression to save disk space, snapshots for incremental backups, and raid6 for redundancy (with workarounds for the write hole issue).
I've changed the size or raid profile of a btrfs volume online a number of times, and that's pretty convenient. I've even fully replaced every single disk in a volume without ever having to take it offline.

is there any performance impact when using compression?

also, does btrfs use 64-bit inodes, 32-bit inodes, or does it let you choose? one unfortunate "advantage" of ext4 is that it still uses 32-bit inodes, which means it works better with some stubborn games that shit the bed on filesystems with 64-bit inodes.

>inodes
in particular, the extent counters

some years ago I had the computer I was using as my router fail to boot because of a bad sector. yes, despite the fact that it was booting from an SSD. drive just coughed up I/O errors. It wasn't anywhere near its rated write endurance. That was a real pain in my ass, since it was my router, I couldn't just download an ISO and reinstall or anything. So now everything I care about boots off a Btrfs RAID1 filesystem.