Very informative review, thank you. But that noise reduction just made me sick. It is very disturbing to hear speech as a set of short voice clips with absolute silence between them. I bet that 'noise' you are trying to mask is not that bad. (or you can at least try another recording software)
@@CyberGizmo, oh, sure. I was looking for one particular topic and your video just came in handy. Since then I've watched several recent vids on your channel and as I can see (and hear) you've managed with that sound issues. I have found all your channel very usefull also. Keep going on.
Again good video. The newest version of ZOL 0.8.x supports encryption. For Ubuntu that support starts with 19.10. ZFS is solid in Linux! I use it now for more that a year without problems on desktop and laptop. I even do send/receives to a 32-bits FreeBSD system. Since early this year I even boot from Linux. I install on ext4 and move that installation to a ZFS dataset, chroot into it, run update-grub and a few other commands and we ready for a ZFS reboot. Ubuntu 19.10 implements the first still limited ZFS support for the installer. I love it, my VMs almost run completely from my 4GB LZ4 compressed L1ARC (memory cache) and my response times are instantaneous. It runs L1ARC at a >90% hit rate on my desktop. I don't like BTRFS. Their architecture has a few strange gimmicks (e.g. they miss the vdev level) and LZ4 beats LZO easily with respect to decompression time. On top of it once I lost a complete sub-volume.
The IO Load i see under ext4 is higher than with xfs, especialy with fast storage. XFS was, specific in the last few years very unproblematic, used it in servers, pcs and vms, while i cant say that about ext4. IF there is a possibility, i use zfs under linux, like on proxmox servers etc. very unproblematic too. I personaly whouldnt use btrfs, cause allone the time they need to fix their raid stuff, is too much. Years ago Raid was allready a problem and 5 and 6 are still, if they cant fix that shit in years i wouldnt entrust them data. The view that EXT4 is for small files and xfs for large is a bit outdated too. Theyre pretty much similar, often xfs a bit faster even with small files. I can understand why some, especially more profressional distros use xfs
You mentioned 11-14gb as Linux’s upper boundary of fall small file sizes, and then talked about small images and documents. Did you mean megabytes? Or are we talking about handling things like uncompressed video files?
What file system would you recommend for a large, fixed hard drive, used to access files of mixed sizes on both Windows and Linux, where both OSes are installed on their own separate hard drives in the same machine?
Only exFAT would work here.. keep in mind no journaling is available but windows does not support any Linux FS and NTFS is closed source. There are drivers out there to actually read but write is always not recommended. Alternative use a samba share if you have a machine to spare
Yeah Thank a lot for this great video. Now first of all my question: What fs would you use for a partition that I solely use for backups via rsync or incremented tarballs. ??? Plus: I grew into linux 10y ago and just feel a certain connection to reiserFS so... I STILL USE IT on some partitions. (good for small files they say!)
@@marcello4258 Not exactly. EFI system partitions are defined to be FAT32 (or even some other older trash). So for maximum compatibility FAT32 as /boot/efi makes perfect sense. And in that partition there is not really happening a lot that could impact the experience, so no reason to spend time trying to get ext2 running, at least if your system is already working fine with FAT32 (like mine). Source/more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFI_system_partition
Right of the bat: There is no other discussion int terms of ecc with zfs that with other FSs. The only difference is you'll notice on zfs and other just don't report an error and give you a buffer with incorrect data back. So it is as save (or unsave) to use ZFS without ecc like it is on any other FS out there.. I am using ext4 for HDD systems (yes still have a laptop) my server runs FreeBSD so guess what ;) I have my desktop with btrfs but I do not really need the additional features here at all. But with my HDD laptop doesn't make sense to have sub volumes I have a swap Partition in the lower blocks for performance and to avoid fragmentation I do not use a swap file which I have on my ssd btrfs machine. I do not know If I got what you mean by Linux default having btrfs in the kernel? I need to add a hook for that but actually it is running like a charm. But to be fair your videos isn't that up to date but I came here to see a comparison between ext4 and xfs. According to your other video ext performs better than btrfs so I guess ext4 still is a solid choice for HDDs today.
