Return to




its clear you don’t know what you’re talking about and are unwilling to do even a cursory read up on how this stuff works.



I guess this comes down to modern computer science not old school limitations like 2TB limits etc.

For a boot drive that should be flash i can concede f2fs may be a winner but only linux. BSD and Mac OS and Wndows dont have it?

Now for a modern workstation or PC with no local NAS.

ZFS / BTRFS / APFS / NTFS (Because windows just won’t make a new workstation FS)

Now this is just a forum so I will not make “Z” level walls of text.

ZFS limited and focused on servers.

BTRFS flexible and reconfigurable on the fly but broken outside raid 1 mayby raid 10 is ok

APFS fuck apple

NTFS fuck windows. By now with all the money the new FS could be something but even on server distro’s I hear nothing special on the next microsoft FS.

While we all play favorites. I certainly do with BTRFS on a one man show PC at home. We could use a solid new FS. Optimized for ARM and x64. OS independent and free / open source for security. With snaps, COW, and bitrot protection because our phones are recording 4K video now !


EDIT: Last time I checked windows now has BTRFS access even though it’s still a broken ass FS.

The only people making FS are corporations for their use. A personal next gen FS is lacking.



Microsoft has released REFS, but I don’t think you can choose it on installation, so only later for data drives added to a system?

1 Like


No one is singing the next fat is REFS but. Its not even performant.



I’m confused by this. There have been NAS OS distros for years now that use ZFS. Synology uses BTRFS. What are we lacking?

1 Like


Me and you know NAS and what the name means :slight_smile:
Im talking about a PC and editing or just saving 4K footage from your phone over time. Not turning to some cloud.

Most PC’s have 4-8 sata ports and now nvme as a plus one more drive.

Why cant a PC have a decent FS outside the stupid current OS FS. Like raid 0



But PCs do have decent next gen FS choices. They are BTRFS and ZFS. They used to have ReFS, but Microsoft took that away from desktop OS users. -> Insert angry rant about how Microsoft is a shitty company that has been holding tech back, here <-

But BTRFS and ZFS are both being ported to Windows. We’ve totally got next gen file systems for personal use, for whomever might want to use them. We just may need to wait a short bit before it’s more accessible.

1 Like


They both shit.

ZFS is a server FS and BTRFS is not done and performs terrible. Redhat all about stratis now but its not complete either and broken.

1 Like


I mean, I guess I was just trying to be nice to BTRFS since people seemed to like it. I’ll agree it’s nothing I’ll go near with a 10 foot pole, so I guess we can stop talking about that one.

What’s with all of the hate for ZFS recently? The growing pains I’ve had with it can literally be tied to 2 things:

  1. Bugs in Linux
  2. Bad defaults

Bugs are going to happen. We’re not going to stop that any time soon, in any OS, with any file system, or really any piece of software.

The bad defaults thing is easily fixed in numerous ways.

All this hoopla about performance being bad, or ZFS being a resource hog, or needing specific hardware. It’s BS. Really, what makes ZFS a “server” file system and not a “desktop” file system?



Your kind there both open source and if you complain why not fix etc etc.

Its just people buy these computers and the only mass storage is the cloud. And that is small and most people have terrible internet.

We really could use a great for the people FS.



The question still stands. What precludes ZFS from being this file system?



Fixed disk sizes for one.

After that im just shiting all over it. PC storage wise.



So you’re in here, pining for a file system for regular people, and the reason you preclude ZFS from being that file system is something that literally doesn’t matter to anyone except people who are neck deep in the storage industry?

I mean, they started the push to vdev expansion back in the tail end of 2017, but honestly, I couldn’t think of a feature that is further from my radar. There are just so many ways to deal with that problem, which are far better than what users need to deal with today.

I kind of wonder if you’re not railing against ZFS just because it’s gotten so popular.



That is me :slight_smile:

Mac,Windows and the minor OS’s Linux and Android (Chromium books) should be RW on ZFS.

This thread is so long and not closed. I can tell it is important. NONE of the current FS are kicking ass on desktops however.



Kicked off via this and ext is a useless FS as well. In today’s TB world.

When we download your brain I will make sure its in ZFS :slight_smile: On Intel of course :slight_smile: No short cuts on performance !



Even though this thread is total lel - there actually is some high quality information sprinkled throughout it (if you know who to pay attention to).

1 Like


That’s been the general reason I am following it.



Only one of those is battle hardened and actually has a reliable history of giving you back what you put into it…

If you aren’t doing de-duplication, the requirements for ZFS on a modern machine with an appropriate amount of RAM (for general use) are a non-issue.



The problem is that you need to know enough to filter out the bm.



Disk sizes aren’t fixed in ZFS. You can replace disks with bigger ones to expand the pool size, no problem. Or just add more disks.

What you can’t do is change raidz layouts. So if you have raidz2 with 4 disks you can’t currently turn that into a raidz2 of 5 disks. But you can replace all the disks one by one with bigger disks.

1 Like