Re: [dev] Suckless filesystems
On Fri, 2023-06-23 at 10:30 +0200, m...@datameer.com wrote: > Sagar Acharya wrote: > > Which are the filesystems which suckless recommends? > > > > In my view, simple ones are FAT32, ext2. > > > > I think journaling is required which I see as within disk backup. A > > robust and easy fsck like program which corrects errors easily. And > > a program which periodically checks memory and replaces all > > corrupted file data with journaled data to be spick and span. > > What do you think about xfs. is it too bloated for you guys? XFS has nice features and very good and consistent documentation. Note that it can only be expanded larger and not smaller (some consider this as showstopper). Beside that I've never experienced any major problem on XFS/EXT4, however on OpenBSD I already had several files in /lost+found after a power failure but you can't really choose something else yet. -- David
Re: [dev] Suckless filesystems
I wonder whether filesystems could be more layered. You can already do this to some extent with LUKS and LVM on Linux, but could you go further? Rather than having a big monolithic filesystem like ext4, could you run some simpler filesystem that just did journaling, then on top of that one that did files and directories, and so on and so forth. By separating featurs out into layers, you could potentially improve stability a lot by getting rid of the features you don't need, instead of having to replace the whole FS with a completely different one. That being said, I suspect a lot of the code is shared in the kernel already.
Re: [dev] Suckless filesystems
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:08:42PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > Which are the filesystems which suckless recommends? > > > > In my view, simple ones are FAT32, ext2. > > > > I think journaling is required which I see as within disk backup. A robust and easy fsck like program which corrects errors easily. And a program which periodically checks memory and replaces all corrupted file data with journaled data to be spick and span. > > > > What are your views on these? > > Thanking you > > Sagar Acharya > > https://humaaraartha.in > > > > Lately, I'm having some hard time with ufs2 > > > > For me it depends. I tend to use the default and most-used filesystem. On Linux > this is ext[234]. > > On OpenBSD I use its default filesystem. It is good enough for most tasks for me. > > For a filesystem reliability is the most important thing. Nothing else matters > if data is lost or access to it is unreliable. > > -- > Kind regards, > Hiltjo > I remember running Debian and having 1 hour-long song which I loved to listen to.. and I found out that it has been deleted from YouTube.. So I wanted to back it up before a system-wipe and well.. I tried like 5 times, every time the file would get corrupted, like it would be partially missing.. what a shame I wasn't as skilled back then, I miss that mix.. Fuck that filesystem, be it Debian's fault or USB FS fault or mine somehow.. the USB works perfectly to this day. Also I think other files got corrupted, too. And as for the "oh so glorious" FreeBSD's OpenZFS, it can fail, too, since /boot isn't a ZFS dataset.. and I had that set up on Arch which took me so much effort than I'd like to admit (shitty-as-fuck documentation, had to try&fail). So no, even FreeBSD as much as it seems to some- is not perfect at all. Oh, and what broke my system was a system update :-) How hard can it be to actually do something properly , which one promote??? I mean, seriously! Do one fucking thing, and do it fucking well, dammit! Not exactly on-topic, but yeah, hopefully someone finds this interesting.
Re: [dev] Suckless filesystems
Sagar Acharya wrote: > Which are the filesystems which suckless recommends? > > In my view, simple ones are FAT32, ext2. > > I think journaling is required which I see as within disk backup. A robust > and easy fsck like program which corrects errors easily. And a program which > periodically checks memory and replaces all corrupted file data with > journaled data to be spick and span. What do you think about xfs. is it too bloated for you guys? -marko
Re: [dev] Suckless filesystems
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:08:42PM +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > Which are the filesystems which suckless recommends? > > In my view, simple ones are FAT32, ext2. > > I think journaling is required which I see as within disk backup. A robust > and easy fsck like program which corrects errors easily. And a program which > periodically checks memory and replaces all corrupted file data with > journaled data to be spick and span. > > What are your views on these? > Thanking you > Sagar Acharya > https://humaaraartha.in > > Lately, I'm having some hard time with ufs2 > For me it depends. I tend to use the default and most-used filesystem. On Linux this is ext[234]. On OpenBSD I use its default filesystem. It is good enough for most tasks for me. For a filesystem reliability is the most important thing. Nothing else matters if data is lost or access to it is unreliable. -- Kind regards, Hiltjo
