It depends, for a normal user? Ext4, maybe btrfs because in terms of stability is the best {but u lose some functions like the ability to make a swap file, wich today isn't really that useful, but u lose the ability to make one). Want something really fast fort large files? ZFS, but if u experience an energy loss it could be really catastrophic.

Ext in general is so good that even to this day android it's still using EXT2, 2!

O use ext4 at home and in servers that are not SLES HANA DB ones.

On SLES HANA servers I use ext4 for everything but the database partitions, for which SAP and SUSE support and recommend XFS.

In a few occasions people left the non-db partitions as the default on SUSE install, btrfs, with default settings. That turned out to cause unnecessary disk and processor usage.

I would be ashamed of justifying btrfs on a server for the possibility of undoing "broken things". Maybe in a distro hopping, system tinkering, unstable release home computer, but not in a server. You don't play around in a server to "break things" that often. Linux (differently from Windows) servers don't break themselves at the software level. For hardware breakages, there's RAID, backups, and HA reduntant systems, because if it's a hardware issue btrfs isn't going to save you - even if you get back that corrupted file, you won't keep running in that hardware, nor trust that "this" was the only and last file it corrupted.

EDIT: somewhat offtopic: I never use LVM. Call me paranoid and old fashioned, but I really prefer knowing where my data is, whole.

I like btrfs cause of transparent compression but I'm pretty sure other filesystems like ZFS have that too

ext4.

Never used arch; just slackware and then enterprise linux.

If you really care about high performance on an SSD, use f2fs. This filesystem was made for SSDs specifically. Though ext4 and xfs are also really solid and shouldn't be that much slower. But if you do care about squeezing out every bit out of performance, f2fs is definitely worth trying.

It's a bit more experimental, yet I've been daily driving it for maybe a year or so at this point and it never caused trouble once, even with cutting edge mount options.

For both my home server and desktop I use XFS for root and ZFS (in some variety of raid or mirror) for /home and data storage. Any time I've tried btrfs for root (such as default fedora), inevitably it poops the bed. At this point, I stay far away from btrfs.

For what? Client on a laptop or PC? Why not f2fs? On a server just trust good ol ext4 with some flash drive settings.

Hi all. Apologies to hijack this thread. Figured it should be OK since it's also on the topic of file systems.

Long story short, I need to reinstall Nobara OS and I plan to install Nobara on my smaller SSD drive with btrfs and set my /home folder to my larger nvme. I'm thinking of using ext4 for my /home and have snapshots of the main system stored on the nvme. Looking for a sanity check to see if this is OK or if I should be doing things differently. Thanks.

oh I just read up on this last knight. Yes ext4 is old but it is used because it is still works quite well. btrfs, dis anyone say that as butfarts, can handle much larger partitions ext4 maxes out at a few tb while btfrs can get much larger. ZFS can handle a around a billion tb but it needs a lot more resources to to even start