File Systems | Which One is the Best? ZFS, BTRFS, or EXT4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Let's go over File Systems in this video. We will determine which one is the best ZFS, BTRFS, and EXT4. Each one might work for you based on YOUR needs! .
►► Digital Downloads ➜ www.cttstore.com
►► Reddit ➜ / christitustech
►► Titus Tech Talk ➜ / titustechtalk
►► Twitch ➜ / christitustech
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember when I started using GNU/Linux over 20 years ago and I couldn't find a defragmenting program in the whole distro. I actually thought that was a bad thing. Hilarious.
It isn't? I'm also new to linux...
@@SunnyGabe There are tools to do it, but I've never actually used them, except once or twice out of curiosity. Only to find out that there was no fragmentation to speak of, even though the filesystem was 95% full most of the time, for months and years. The filesystems are just that well designed. They will happily run under circumstances that would make Windows and FAT break down and cry.
@@SunnyGabe modern operating systems will do it routinely for you.
me too :)
@@SnowyRVulpix nitpicking here ...but it is not the operating system doing it it is the filesystem. e.g.
BTRFS which is very advanced can be mounted with compression algorithms and autodefrag. Or ZFS for instance can be mounted by Linux, BSD, Solaris which are different OSes and it works the same way on all of them.
i use ext 4 and i am happy with it 🙂
I use btrfs........It's amazing. It's nice to see that you are happy with Ext4 😀
Internet Personal oy
UPDATE: Now I use ext4 because of some problems :)
yeah it is mature
@@bruno-zc1jo ?
If I were the US government, I’d make a one-time cash payment to Oracle to release ZFS to open source. Kinda like the interstate freeway, putting all our business data on a better file system could save us all from disaster. Then get our power grid and other critical systems on ZFS.
If I had Bezos money, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Why? There is OpenZFS where you do not have to pay. No real advantage of ZFS comparing with OpenZFS.
@@catchnkill oh! So, would you recommend openzfs for use on laptop SSD by a newbie? How do I configure my disk into openzfs?
@@ekeretteekpo3004 No, I do not. It is a overkill. Btrfs is good enough. Btrfs's problems come from its advance functions like RAID5, 6, online expansion etc. Basic functions have been rock solid already. Facebook uses Btrfs extensively.
@@catchnkill oh! That helps. I'll try it out then. Thank you very much.
Lots of "this is the best" or "only idiots use this", and almost not a word of actual explanation.
I don't want to have to "understand" my FS in order not to lose my data. I might miss on many cool features if I am not familiar with them, but basic functionality must be there out of the box even "for idiots".
Kudos for stressing the need for multi-layer redundancy when storing your critical data.
And what are all of those cloud server providers using? Most likely RAID 5/6 ???
It is cheaper and they have backups as well since disks ain't the only thing that can fail in a computing system. RAID is not a Backup
@@ArthursHD Do they actually make backups though. Most seem to not make backups and rely entirely on having redundant copies on a separate server / datacenter in case of failure.
@@gyroninjamodder In public cloud IaaS, backup is the customers responsibility. If you take a managed service that includes backup, it is clearly declared as a feature. As you state, cloud providers generally replicate your dataset to multiple nodes (in multiple geo-local datacenters less than 10ms apart) so in theory a crash-consistent copy of your data is always available in the event of hardware failure. If you pay extra, they will async replicate it to another region too! There is definitely some disk redundancy within hosts, however...I suspect each host carries several different arrays for different storage performance tiers.
I'm using FreeNAS with 3 disks in RaidZ1. The writes aren't that good, but reads are fine and it's a backup/media server anyway. That RaidZ1 is snapshot backed up to a single disk too. Backup disk is older (but larger) so I didn't include it with the other 3; also I like it being a separate managed disk backup.
9:00 Btrfs snapshots are not a backup! Unless the snapshots are saved on a different physical drive.
Hi!
Did I get you right, you use raid10 and every time you need to increase the pool you just add another raid10, raid10 on top of raid1?
I have 12 drives in BTRFS Raid 6. Here are the advantages of raid 6 over raid 10.
I have 10 disks worth of storage instead of 6 disk with raid 10. To get the same 10 disks worth of storage I would need 20 disks, which my nas does not support and that would be very expensive to purchase an additional 8 hard drives.
I can lose any two drives with raid 6 and still be fine.
With raid 10 I could lose up to 6 drives as long as I lose the right drives. But if I lost two drives from same mirrored pair I would lose all of my data.
Which file system would you recommend for formatting a usb stick?
Fat32
Tldr:
ext4: basic functionality, little configuration, low overhead
btrfs: advanced features (checksums, compression, RAID), mostly for personal use (not as well tested as zfs)
zfs: lots of features, great reliability but complicated and resource intensive
ty
That was actually better than watching all these videos, thanks man. I already know what to use after reading short comment, lol.
How do you compress btrfs?
What about xfs?
@@AnotherSkyTV similar in principle to ext4 (traditional FS with journaling but without many of the btrfs/zfs features). Different performance characteristics (better in many scenarios, especially when scaling to larger filesystems on servers, but a few operations are more CPU intensive). Also has online expansion, defragmentation and metadata verification/repair, but the big disadvantage is that you can not shrink an xfs filesystem (not even when it's unmounted).
Thank you for the info about filesystems. However that rant on RAID 5 and 6 was entirely unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and I would say flat out wrong
I agree somewhat, especially because he only meantioned the case of 3 or 4 disks. What if I have 6 or 8 disks that I want as one array? What would he recommend then? I would actually like to here him explain that in proper detail
@@TheGodCraftMaster Totally agree. RAID 10/60 are more complicated and not more reliable in my opinion maybe better performance.
@@TheGodCraftMaster The answer to that depends on your workload/goals. TLDR: Raid 10 for 2-4 disks, Raid 6/60 for 6+ disks for cheap storage, Raid 10 for performance. Each technology has it's benefits and tradeoffs. Parity raid, "raid 5/z1,6/2,z3" has a large performance hit, but it's cheap for bulk storage. For large slow disks (>1tb) raid 5 should never be used, it's not safe. For hardware raid only use good controllers with a battery cache. In either case ECC memory is important. Calculating actual real world failure rates is complicated and more dangerous than many online calculators would have you believe. However raid 6 volumes are at least good to 10 disks or so, you could make a striped pool "raid 60" of multiple 10 disk sets to make some really large arrays. Raid 10 is the better general option, high performance and safe at scale. Raid 5 *can* be safe on ssd's because the rebuild time is so much lower, but that kind of irks me because if you are spending the money on ssds.... maybe just spend more and get raid 10 on them? But the reality is that it can make sense, a raid 5 on ssd is still going to blow a spinning set out of the water. Want some insane and totally unsafe storage for video editing or gaming? Raid 0 is the answer! You'll definitely loose the array at some point, but for fast working space it can be amazing.
Caveats to online reliability calculators: The manufacturers do tests on disks to estimate failure rates, however they can't *really* know what the real world outcomes will be years down the road and there can be large variance and sometimes firmware bugs. Data centers that buy thousands of disks have sometimes released statistics by model and brand and the results can be surprising, where you have much higher failure rate than expected with certain makes of certain drives, or even manufacturing runs of the same model. Add to that potential for raid controller bugs, other hardware bugs, etc and that should cause some significant skepticism. I've had clients loose raid 5 arrays due, not to defective disks, but buggy hardware raid that just decided to kick two disks off the array for no reason. Using onboard or low end controllers, especially ones without battery backed caches should be considered suicide. The bottom line is I don't *really* trust hardware raid, even good vendors tend to just release and forget about them, it's rare I have any issue with good ones, but with ZFS, or even just Linux MD raid, the implementation is known and used the world over, it's very known, stable, and very recoverable by reassembly tools and 3rd party data recovery services. Except for super high end NAS solutions, the reason hardware raid still exists is one reason only: Windows. Windows is actually working on their answer to ZFS, which is ReFS / StorageSpaces but nobody is really using that yet.
@@entelinI have 3 3tb disks and no space for a 4th. I wanted to put them in raid 5. What would you recommend instead of raid 5. It was recommended everywhere I looked for this kind of setup.
@@redcrafterlppa303 If these disks are SSD's then raid5, if not, then either get a 4th and do raid 10, or mirror just 2 of them. If you don't care about performance or a high degree of safety then you could do raid 5.
Safety may not always be the primary concern. Like for example if this array is specifically for holding backups, it's not really the end of the world if it dies, it's not the live data anyway. Some gamers will even make stripes of SSD's to get crazy performance with very little safety because what they care about is the performance any they don't contain data that can't be redownloaded.
Every raid level has it's place, but I can say for a client, I would never recommend raid 5 on spinning disks for use on their live data.
Can you make the 10 min rant on why ntfs is bad?
* Closed source
* Newest versions cannot be resized, except from when within windows
* less performance
* Need a defragment tool
@@Ju13n1s2e9 Ext XFS Btrfs also have a defrag tool. Every mechanical disk suffers from fragmentation if there is no free space to work healthy.
@@namelesske Yes, but in my experience NTFS is by far the one most prone to fragmentation and the most in need of defragmentation on a more frequent basis.
@@praetorxyn
I'm using with NTFS 3G driver and it's behaves just as any ext filesystem In terms of fragmentation. I choosed to use on Linux because of the cross platform compatibility, but the performance is really poor, but still better option to use instead of FAT32 or exfat. I'm not gambling with non journaling fs.
Krisztián Kovács What is this I don't even. To make the same partition accessible across both OS in a dual boot or something? I think there are at least experimental Ext drivers for Windows for that purpose I looked into a decade ago.
I was talking about NTFS on Windows itself dual booted with one of the ext on Linux. Windows was noticeably slower, and the more time that passed the slower Windows got compared to Linux, which means fragmentation. That was probably a decade ago though, it has to have been that long since I had anything but solid state drives in a workstation.
5:48 *OMG* he's clueless about raid
He gives some really bad advice people. Please look this topic up yourself.
dan8t6 what is the thing he says which is incorrect?
@@neilbedwell7763 5:48 he says: "you nedd to not use *striping* like raid0, raid5, raid6"
but at 6:44 He's contradicting himself, by promoting raid 10. Which is also using *striping*
5:54 he says: "these are just really bad raids (...) just in general"
Notice the pause in the sentence. He couldn't come up with any arguments for his claim.
5:57 "like I never use them in business (...) and I never use them at here at the house, as I don't like them, at all"
Translation: I don't understand them, therefore they must be bad.
6:08 He's throwing insults at people/businesses using raid5/6 without giving any reasons, arguments, or proof why they're so bad.
6:21 Struggling to come up with something and giving up mid way through.
6:40 What he's saying only makes sense, if you only ever deal with very small raids of 3/4 disks.
In the business world, you're going to encounter raids arrays of 6 to 12 disks.
7:00 he says: "raid6, you have 4 disks. you know, 3 to establish raid5 and then that extra one is called a hot spare"
Again with the 4 disks lol. Anyways, his explanation of raid6 is 100% wrong. That is not how it works and the 4th disk would not called hot spare.
A hot spare is something that *can* be used in raid1, 3, 5, 6, 10, z1, z2, z3... but it is *not* needed in *any* raid.
7:12 More insults, no arguments.
7:32 (4 disks again) he says: "you can literally lose 2 disks and more than likely it's still gonna work"
Wrong. The chance of losing *all* data is exactly 50%. (2 drives failing in 4 disk raid 10 array)
50% is not the same as "more than likely"
TL;DR He proved he doesn't understand: raid6 at all, probability calculation and what to do with more than 4 disks.
dan8t6 thank you for the completeness
@@neilbedwell7763 No problem, glad you appreciate it.
@@dan8t669 incredibly comprehensive. I have an 8-bay RAID5 NAS, and yeah, RAID5 offers some serious benefits over RAID10
In (4 drive) RAID 10, if one drive is failed, there’s a 1-in-3 chance that a second drive failure will take out the whole array. RAID 6 doesn’t have this risk.
Also, when an array has more than 4 drives RAID 6 starts to make even more sense, as you can get more useable space out of the drives while still having two-point-failure redundancy.
This.
Many times in smaller servers or in home office environments (4-6 disks) RAID 10 makes sense, not to be confused with RAID 01 where if you end up losing a disk in a 6 disk array, you're essentially running RAID 0.
All the more to be careful with certain "Cheap RAID" cards that actually implement RAID 01 instead of RAID 10.
Extremely relevant comment about RAID 10!
I wish I could give you more than one like!
(I cannot comment about RAID 6 as I have never used it)
I was looking to set up a redundant system recently and was like...I don't know what raid10 is...went to look it up and that cynic in me was like...hell nah! If I lose two drives...I will probably loose two paired drives and lose everything. Thinking of lvm on top of raid1...when I have money again.
This is not fully true, the statistics are A LOT more complex than what you just wrote.
You have to take into account failure rates, load patterns and smaller data losses as well (not every data loss is due to a while disk failing).
3 Mirrors with 2 drives (6 disks total) have a much lower chance of another total drive failure when one drive failes compared to a 6 disk raid 6. Mostly due to load patterns of parity reconstruction.
However: 3 mirrors with 2 drives, does NOT have the ability to correct smaller errors after a disk failure.
If you want to correct small errors on reconstruct you NEED to go byond 1 parity or dual mirror.
That means: Tripple mirror or raid 6.
However:
2 Tripple mirrors has significant lower disk usability (33% usable) than Raid6 (66% usable)
2 Tripple mirrors also has significant higher power requirements (due to more redundancy disks)
I personally go for Raidz2(ZFS raid6), because I want to be able to correct errors when a disk is failed, disks ain't free and I want to stay somewhat power efficient.
But if I had a higher budget for power I would've gone for tripple mirrors, due to the lower chance of another disk failing on rebuild.
What I tried to explain:
There are multiple kinds of failures, all with their own chances and statistics of failures on rebuild have more variables.
ZFS was designed for this folks !
Thank Sun Microsystems for their contributions to computers and technology.
When it comes to desktop, ext4 is good enough for pretty much everything. It's super performant, fairly robust, and really simple to setup.
For you with a reliable electricity net, but many people live in developing countries with many powerfails/week.
XFS is more performant than EXT4 especially with large files
@@bertnijhof5413 what do you reccomend then
@@bruhmode3041 If you have some IT experience, I recommend Ubuntu 19.10/20.04 + ZFS, I use it myself. It will protect you against corrupted files caused by crashes.
Else stick to ext4.
@@user-no3tu9kh3p I do not believe any American anymore :)
I hope for more detailed video comparing files systems in features and performance.
1:53 That monitor in the back synced up perfectly to his words XD
bro you got some exceptional observation skills.
I've used ZFS, but the fact that Btrfs is a native Linux filesystem made me switch to it. Spanshots are awesome but I regularly sync them to an external backup drive using btrbk utility.
the so called licensing "problem" should never be a reason to chose or not chose a filesystem. It's it's reliability, performance, caveats, features etc that drive a decision
Forget the three letter acronyms,
name a filesystem BACONfs and everyone will want to run it
i don't think EVERYONE would use it. only those who generally buy vanity plates, and pick a computer based primarily on what color it is would do that...
Eh....
"Raid 6 is for idiots...."
"Raid 6 should be not exists...."
Chris: you should sleep one more night around these two sentences
In a 4 disk environment you might be true (but it's not right at all)....
..... but in an enterprise environment where we use much more than 4 disk in a raid group.
Another thing about Raid 10 vs Raid 6..... If you have 4 disks....
- using Raid 6: you can lose 2 disks of 4 ... NO matter which two
- using Raid 10: you can lose 2 disk of 4 but it DOES matter which two
Due to raid 10 (A-A | B-B) block organise...
And what about Raid Z and raid Z2..... alias Raid 5 and Raid 6 by ZFS....
I use raid z2 on an 8 drive array for over a year, lost 1 drive once, good to have because you can really stress on a HD rebuild on a 20TB array, may actually cause another failure.
@@wildmanjeff42 Yes! That's why Raid6/RaidZ2 better than Raid5/RaidZ... :D
That’s what I was thinking. If I lose a disk on RAID 6, I’m hurting but not scared yet. On RAID 10 I’d be scared, because sure I can survive a disk loss, _if it’s the right one._ At that point I might as well have no redundancy to speak of; I’ll be praying just as hard that the rebuild works before I have any other failures.
This was not a good video. For one, in RAID6, one drive is not "hot spare". RAID6 uses double-parity whereas RAID5 uses single-parity. Secondly, you basically said "don't use any RAID-levels with Btrfs because it's bad and it's bad because I don't like it" -- you never clarified your statement. There is no reason why one shouldn't use RAID0 or RAID1 with Btrfs if they'd be fine using RAID0 or RAID1 with some other filesystem. Hell, because Btrfs does detect bitrot and corrects it automatically, like ZFS does, it's actually better than using RAID1 with some other filesystem! Thirdly, you're calling people who use Btrfs RAID idiots? That's pretty rude. You don't have to like Btrfs RAID, but that doesn't make people who use it idiots. Like I mentioned in another video of yours, I've been using Btrfs in various RAID-levels for years now and I am using Btrfs RAID5 in my video-server. Why? Because RAID10 would cost me a lot more and I happen to be on a very small budget. RAID5 requires fewer drives while still providing some protection.
+1 .... RAID5 has minimum three discs (D1 D1 P1, P2 D2 D2, D3 P3 D3, .... ). RAID6 has minumum four discs (D1 D1 P1 PP1, PP2 D2 D2 P2, P3 PP3 D3 D3, ...). Hot-spare disc is only next disc waiting for rebuild (when some of RAID members failed). No one knows everything.
I think raid 6 makes more sense to use with more drives. Like 6 drives or 8 drives.
@@Traumatree I use RAID6 with 6 x 6 TB drives and for me this is safe enough. _Half_ of the drives need to fail for me to lose data. For 7-12 drives ZFS offers Raidz3 (4+ drives need to fail for you to lose data). Any data that's really important to you (or your business) needs to be backed up anyway, so this is more about avoiding downtime. If you want performance and reliability and you're OK with buying twice as many drives, yes striped mirrors can be an excellent choice. If you're unlucky though, you can lose everything with only 2 failed drives (a drive and its mirror). RaidZ3 can be quite resilient especially with ~8 drives, but performance is quite bad compared to striped mirrors. There are tradeoffs here involving cost, reliability, and performance, and there still isn't one kind of setup that is best for every situation. You have to understand these tradeoffs & make the call for yourself.
@@Traumatree I've never lost data on a RAID6 array in ~15 years. Not one bit, and I've had several older drives fail on 3 RAID6 arrays with 6, 8, and 8 drives respectively. But this isn't a matter of "my chosen RAID level is correct and yours is wrong" ; my point is that we each have to make a choice based on budget & what's important to us. I could just as easily tell you that if you "really cared about your data", you'd put it on ZFS zpool whose VDEVs are RAIDZ3 of only 5 drives each (which would perform terribly), but I don't presume to tell you how to make performance/reliability/cost tradeoffs for your own data. To your concern about additional drives failing during reconstruction, for ZFS it's good precaution to "scrub" periodically (cron job) to guard against trouble during re-silvering, and for Linux md arrays my system checks arrays periodically as well. And of course, if you "truly value your data" you're not counting on _any_ single storage system to preserve it. You _must_ back it up.
P.J, so do you really think rebuilding a mirror incurs less risk than that of two additional spindles failing in a dual parity configuration?
Do you also believe this perceived reduction in risk is worth doubling the number of storage racks?
RAID 1+0 gives an effective capacity of 191 spindles per rack compared to 304 or 342 for RAID 6+0. (assuming 380 drives per 42U rack)
@@Traumatree you'd better tell NetApp. And EMC. They seem to disagree with you. Whilst I concur that the lower write speed on RAID6 increases the time exposed to risk (and therefore more likely to see a second disk fail) it's the read activity thar is doing the killing....and RAID6 is only writing the new disk, and reading all the others. On RAID10, the only disk being hammered with read is the one you are trying to mirror......guess which disk is most likely to fail? RAID6 is still in use for a good reason......they may be slow, but they are generally more highly available than RAID10 with disks upto 3TB. After that you need RAID100 if you need write performance, or RAID60 if you just need the availability. Everything has a use-case.
@@vonkruel
i use 4hdds in raid5, haven't lost data. however RAID is not a backup. You still need a backup and highly recommend it.
So raid5 has better usable space, and you got a backup to recover from, so what the heck is the problem mentioned by the youtuber? why would i use raid10 for less usable space? www.raid-calculator.com/
4x4tb
raid5 = 12tb usable space, and 1 hdd fault tolerance.
Speed gain: 3x read speed, no write speed gain
raid6 = 8 TB
usable space, and 2 hdd fault tolerance.
Speed gain: 2x read speed, no write speed gain
raid10 = 8tb usable space, and 1 hdd fault tolerance.
Speed gain: 4x read and 2x write speed gain
i rather have more usable space >_>:
I wouldn't use raid6 for 4hdds, because it's too costly in terms of getting less usable space. using raid6 for 8 hdds sounds more reasonable perhaps.
also using zfs is probably the best for a filesystem if you care about checksum auto correction and data integrity.
one problem with this video, he scares people away from raid5/6. he is right about raid 0, and i wouldn't recommend that. but raid5/6 isn't prime for btrfs since it's buggy as hell and isn't ready yet. but on ext4 and zfs raid5/6 works and is stable. you still need a backup though. haven't lost data using raid5 over many years while having backups. and yes a hdd had droped out of the raid or gone out of sync for one reason or another, but it supports 1 hdd fault tolerance. i replace the hdd and it rebuilds. and in worse case scenario, i just recover from my backup.
i recommend watching this video instead who's youtuber has a much better understanding on this topic
th-cam.com/video/yAuEgepZG_8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/pv9smNQ5fG0/w-d-xo.html
this is why i am excited about the qnap qts hero, which is adding a zfs linux :D
First time watching your videos but there's some misinformation here. RAID 6 doesn't use a hot spare. It's uses striping across the disk with dual parity instead of single parity that RAID 5 uses. Next in a 4 disk RAID 6 you will still gain 2X read speed but no gains in write speed. However, with most home users utilizing Gbit still, the performance benefits of RAID 10 will probably go unnoticed but with an increase in fault tolerance. Since you brought up the enterprise I'll address that as well. Before my current job (no longer dealing with storage), I used to mostly use RAID 50 or 60. This allows for a heavy increase in read speed (depending upon number of drives and RAID parity) which is what most enterprise environments require. If RAID 10 was ever used, it was used for environments that needed a large amount write speed (Big Data as an example). However, most large enterprises are moving to flash storage which would remove any reason to still use a RAID with such little fault tolerance.
I'd never thought much about filesystems until I started noticing very big compile time differences in Windows and Linux but with the same hardware. Compiling the same source code in Windows would take minutes while doing it in Linux would take seconds.
Maybe the gcc or g++ compiler is running multiple threads on Linux and maybe on Windows, you are using the VC++ compiler or something and it is single threaded?
There could be multiple factors in this.
defender?
@@RickMyBalls It's been a while since I looked into the potential reasons, but my research at the time lead me to some sources which indicated that it was somehow related to NTFS. I've never had the need to use Windows since, so I've not really bothered looking into it again.
@@Maritims i only say that because another commenter on chris' windows defender video claimed that it was scanning everything as it was compiling and bogging it down. just windows being windows i guess. the only thing keeping me on it is gaming.
@@RickMyBalls I'll check that out just in case that's the real reason. This occurred when using Gradle and Maven. I bet Defender continuously scans the insides of JAR files. Speaking of gaming, Steam works really well on Linux now.
when you have 10 or 20 disks raid 6 makes a little more sense. or Raid Z3.
the equivalent to 6 is raid z2 or am i wrong?
*PLEASE NOTE ALL VIEWERS*
The information in this video regarding the superiority of RAID 10 over RAID 6 is FALSE. Chose RAID 10 it over RAID 6 and the risk of losing your data increases.
Please do some research on your own before deciding your RAID level.
Please correct the video or pin this to the top.
The RAID rant is a bit silly.
I would not use a RAID 10 in a 20 disk setup for example.
That's where you use RAID 5 with one or two hot spares.
Actually, the silly person would be the one that uses a RAID 10 in this constellation.
Max F0sching I was thinking the same thing. I’m thinking he’s never run a 100 disk array and had to report to a CFO on infrastructure spend.
"If you buy another drive for RAID 5 you can get RAID 10 [...] with none of the downsides". Can you shit money? Because you will lose 66,67% of you capacity. You pay for 12 TB and you get 4TB. That a gigantic Downside in my eyes and the whole reason people consider RAID 5 and 6.
EXT4 for me.. It's everywhere, it's been around for a long time, it's rock-solid stable.. What's not to like??
@@user-no3tu9kh3p No?
@@user-no3tu9kh3p UPS for this cowboy. Save my work and shut down in an orderly fashion. No more rolls of the dice when flashing BIOS either.
Anything that is not NTFS.
FAT32 is good for USB-sticks and external hard drives (for cross-platform compatibility).
I've never tinkered too deep with Linux, so I've been happy with Ext4
What are the biggest problems with NTFS? Asking for a friend ;P
@@jpHasABadHandle 7777 :v
agreed. I actually have grown to appreciate that thumb drives come fat32. It's shite for anything else, but yeah. Simple. Gets the job done.
@@jpHasABadHandle NTFS has very bad compatibility with other devices.
For example, it doesn't work on Android.
On Mac computers you can read NTFS , but in order to write you need 3rd party software.
Some DVD players and digital cameras do not offer support for NTFS storage devices.
Also, NTFS is more prone to fragmentation than other file systems (at least it used to be).
I see.
"If you want to use ZFS, get yourself a lawyer"
.... i think a raid video is in order
yes please. That went over my head completely.
Didn't Chris do something with LVM? That's Linux's built in software RAID, or at least one method to get such. But agreed, this is quite common - people thinking RAID is an answer to everything, and then sticking something like a 20TB RAID 5 in as if it will protect their data.
Raid is like a box of chocolates
Real Raid
Kinda Raid Motherboards
Software Raid
@@rwbimbie5854 And then there's the liquorice: RAIDZ and BTRFS RAID. Not to mention the Turkish delight - UnionFS.
@@PyCoder82 Similar, both LVM and MDADM are management interfaces to MD which is what's actually creating the RAID:
www.systutorials.com/docs/linux/man/7-lvmraid/
linux.die.net/man/8/mdadm
linux.die.net/man/4/md
"basically remove the need for backup"? Apparently you never experience HDD or or worst: RAID card failure... No file system will EVER remove the need for backup.
The scenario I work on is turning up at work to find the office and everything inside completely absent. If you can recover from that you have a backup.
make 10 minute rant video of Microsoft file system
PLEASE make that 10-minute Microshaft FS hatred video...I'm begging you lol
I use XFS, for moving files around on a partition it's faster than EXT4, and taking into consideration SSD storage because of the higher IOPS it's a no brainer
RAID6 is NOT raid5+1hotspare... RAID6 in a 4 drive config is silly, but it is 2 drive redundancy, which is quite far away from Raid5 with a hot spare.
"RAID6" should not exist.... uhm, buddy, thats probably because you dont entirely know what you are talking about :D
RAID6: two drive redundancy
RAID5: Single drive redunancy
RAID5+HOTSPARE=1 drive redunancy with automatic rebuild to hot spare...
You're wrong on a few points.
In a configuration with 4 drives:
- RAID10 won't tolerate a 2 disk loss scenario where you lose a disk and its mirror.
- RAID6 will tolerate *any* 2 disk loss scenario
In a configuration with more than 4 drives:
- RAID10 becomes more capacity inefficient, it exposes 50% of available space in the array for use.
- RAID10 is limited to using an even number of disks in an array.
- RAID6 becomes more capacity efficient, it will expose capacity for (number of drives - 2)
- RAID6 can utilise even number of disks
Also:
- RAID6 does not use a hot spare, it uses 2 drives for parity, i.e. no disk is left idling.
- RAID10 is more performant at any array size
I suggest you do some research and fact check the points above, at least learn the concepts right before forming an ill informed opinion on RAID6, and even more research before spreading misinformation.
A lot of data centers use RAID6, as it is one of the most resilliant array configurations, you're the noob for not knowing about it... the irony. :)
You're welcome.
6:00 lot of 💩💩💩💩 talking on RAID 6 but I didn't hear any technical arguments why it's not good and why RAID 10 is so much superior. In fact, if your goal is storage > speed or to allow for additional disk failures then RAID 6 looks pretty appealing. Also, what env are we in -- A multi-million data center, a garage with some consumer disks and an old tower I want to put to use, or something else? Context is important in your opinions.
Yes, RAID 10 is nice but its also costs $$$. If you're just using an array for backup data where performance is not really an issue then RAID 5 or 6 may make more sense cost wise. RAID 5 and 6 has it's place, depends on what you're using it for.
I wanted to use BTRFS once, but then I got a bit scared and backed out of it and stayed with EXT4, should I give it a try? It's not too hard to set up, is it?
i use ubuntu 18.04 on BTRFS on root partition. Just select btrfs while installation.
Tip: Use TimeShift App to manage snapshot. You don't have to remember complex command. So, you never have to touch terminal for this FS.
Overall im pretty happy with this.
LMAO .. sure all that when you have a small amount of data. Look at your bank account and then calculate the cost of 100 TB of cloud storage or more.
Linus Torvalds is entitled to his opinion about ZFS, but it's not like we all have to fall in line behind him. In fact ZFS on Linux is in a very good state & has been for years. Check out Proxmox VE if you're looking to build a NAS that also runs VMs and containers. ZFS + LXC + KVM is a powerful combo, and if you're already familiar with Linux (especially Debian) you'll feel right at home. It requires a little setup but you can also run Docker containers with a nice web UI to manage them.
so if FAT is so bad, why I always seen people making their boot partition as FAT32?
But you’re not going into why. Sounds like this is all your opinion on why it’s better without explaining your use cases and actual differences. Also I would have liked to know what’s so bad about Ntfs, exactly what makes it bad and the other ones better.
The amount of misinformation in this video is huge... Please, do some intensive research before just saying a FS is better than any other. This also applies to RAID config. Level1Techs channel is a good start
I prefer XFS over Ext4 because if feels more smooth under heavy loads.
XFS had special hardware acceleration in the Sgi machines, in Linux they are not near as efficient but nowadays CPUs can handle the overhead.
Is xfs still supported? I had issues with xfs on ppc, about 15 yrs ago, though.
@@boxerfencer Yes, XFS is still in active development for Linux. It's also quite popular.
Today is the main file system promoted in Red Hat Linux systems.
RAID 6 is needed for HDDs with capacities over 2 TB. Due to Unrecoverable Bit Errors, you’re more likely to go from a degraded array to total data loss as a result. If you’re going with large data pools, you need RAID 6 to add a layer of fault tolerance.
Also, you knock FAT32, but UEFI requires the boot filesystem to be that format regardless of OS.
ReiserFS != Reiser4. The latter trumps everything that would be on spinning rust while dealing with small files. I’ve never had any FS best R4 when applied to Portage in Gentoo.
No wonder UEFI requires FAT32. Guess what: Microsoft is part of the Unified EFI Forum. Same as with SD-Cards. Why do we have exFAT as a default FS on SDXC cards? Microsoft again. They are not part of the SD card association, but they *kindly offered* (more like: pushed them gently to use) exFAT for large flash memory devices.
Don't misinterpret it. UEFI requires *implementations* of it to support at least FAT32.
And it's perfectly fine FS for the purpose because ESP is effectively like read-only in daily operation.
@@MistorDi There is no misinterpretation, it's just fact. I did not say that FAT32 is a big problem here.
UEFI is just as bad as FAT32.
I use btrfs on my laptop, absolutely love the snapshots. I back up data that I actually care about, and use snapshots to restore my system if something breaks.
I use btrfs on my workstation due snapshot feature. I have JBOD configuration on three disks, it surely breaks if any of the disk has a fatal failure, but that's why there are backups.
RAID was initially about protection against data loss through device failure. Performance enhancements should be considered a potential positive side effect, the level of which depends on the RAID level chosen, number of disks, type of disks and their performance individually.
RAID6 (roughly equivalent to ZFS RAIDZ2) protects your data availability in the case of dual drive failure. For smaller drives (say, under 1TB) this is indeed probably overkill, as long as you are able to resource a replacement drive and reintegrate into the array quickly enough. For drives at 1TB, it comes down to your data value as to whether you are comfortable with a single disk failure before data loss at the next failure. At 2TB, you run the risk of a second failure before you have managed to complete rebuild of the first failure.
Rebuilding an array puts huge strain on the remaining disks, that more than likely have all been working together in the array for the same amount of time.
So, RAID6 has a place in protecting large, bulk storage where performance is not as important as keeping the data available.
For desktops, this RAID level is overkill.
Also, performance for writing is low, due to having to calculate, write and then verify two lots of parity. Read performance should still be pretty good.
@@StephenBrown-gr3ix Thanks for the clarification! I don't know a lot about raid and this is very interesting
I mostly use btrfs for root on desktop systems. Mostly because they are developement/testing systems and easy rollback saves time. For servers with big database files I would use xfs.
Btw, snapshots do not remove the need for backups. They have different use case.
it has got extremely cool features. But it is the only Linux file system where I experience ultimately irreparable corruption on undamaged hardware. With ext2/3/4 I never saw anything like that.
No, but CoW filesystems do simplify backups.
Raid6 isn't Raid5 with hot spare. Raid6 is double parity.
What about f2fs
I like XFS a bit more, but F2FS does have some good numbers.
F2FS is meant for flash-based storage that doesn't do its own wear-leveling. F2FS does do wear-leveling OS-side, whereas e.g. on modern SSDs it's the controller inside them that does that task. F2FS doesn't make much sense on most modern media.
@@WereCatf I think you underestimate the performance improvement. Removing all the HDD legacy feature make F2FS a way faster even on modern SSD.
I used ext4 and xfs, which are fast and rock solid. Tried btrfs but it had issues. zfs loses, performance wise.
I use Raid also kills bugs pretty good.
Chris, personally I’m not a big fan of using superlatives in video titles. Nevertheless, thanks for the review.
Superlatives are the absolute best.
You didn't cover XFS which is the default file system of redhat
I normally like your conent, this vid though was poorly organised which made for wishy washy recommendations. if your on a laptop for example XFS will be better then EXT4 if your using a mmc /sd card based SoC system then F2FS is better. on a Desktop then EXT4 , XFS with a good backup strategy, on servers then it makes sense to use btrfs for innate kernel support otherwise ZFS etc.... for those that are all about security(encryption). then your (luks lvm ext4/xfs)
I use F2FS on my NVME SSD and XFS on my HDD
If ZFS doesn't have all that licensing stuff, I'll use it by default. It also requires a significant amount of RAM.
BtrFS is not mature enough in my opinion, so I won't use it for production machines, yet.
I'll stick with Ext4 for now, it's mature, stable, tried and tested.
NTFS is just no.
FAT 32/16 or exFAT are still usable for compatibility reasons.
Anybody remembers FAT12? (This is MS-DOS/PC-DOS era stuff, kids. Booting from a floppy disk in the A drive kind of thing)
No gui, only commandlines, ... nostalgia ;)
"floppy disk" - You just lost everybody under the age of 30. 😂
lots of rant. Little info.
Even after Linus torvalds told not to use ZFS why is Ubuntu using it?
Ubuntu lost it when they shared the bed with Oracle and Microsoft!
Great video but RAID 5 and 6 and so on absolutely have their place with out using ZFS, imagine a scenario where ram amount is an issue. I think you bad experience which comes from lack of proper parity raid integration like those built into mother boards or cheap raid enclosures, if u invest in the right software or raid enclosures or a dedicated raid card then u will see its value over raid 0 and 1 or 10. Because u do loose more storg that way with out addressing the other storage needs
FAT is great for things like Flash Drives or partitions that need to accessible between OSes.
Ext4 is fine to use if it is something that is not important like a laptop as you should never carry important data on it.
BtrFS is great for that snapshot feature, subvolume, quota, etc. Basically, it is feature rich and is something that should be used on something like a gaming rig or a family computer imo.
ZFS, never tried it, mainly because I never done enterprise server shit.
NTFS is just, no, never. It takes so long for fsck.ntfs to check and repair an NTFS partition. It is not *nix compatible, and just weird to use.
I would argue that the best file system comes down to use case. For a system drive, Windows should be NTFS, macOS needs to be HFS+/APFS, Linux works perfect with ext4. For USB drives I would go with FAT32 for capacities under 32GB because it's more compatible with multiple operating systems out of the box but, if it's larger than 32GB or any files need to be larger than 4GB, you should go with exFAT. ZFS is a great file system, but it's only real advantage is the ability to talk directly with the hardware making it much safer against data corruption. Something only a data center really needs, kinda pointless in a home environment.
Personally...NTFS isn't bad per say... It's just that Window 10's IO handler is utter garbage. Making it slow down eventually on anything that's not an SSD...
Raid6, Hot Spare? Ummm NOPE
ZFS is a licensing nightmare, if it wasn’t for that I would say zfs once its mainlined
Lawyer?
Bert Nijhof no, I’m just familiar with how strict GPL is, and Oracle has a history of being disagreeable.
@@LeonWhites_Darkspace So you are an amateur with respect to licenses.
Bert Nijhof not an amateur, I’ve sought out professional advice before for GPL and have read Linus’s stance on the matter. I’m just not an expert.
@@LeonWhites_Darkspace What you described, is called an amateur.
File systems: btrfs for workstations and etx4 for servers.
I pretty much default to raid 10 also but I think you're a little hard on raid 5/6. Definitely don't use raid 5 today but not for performance reasons. The read performance for raid 5 vs 10 is negligible when you consider that raid 10 leaves only 50% of the total raw storage available for a file system. So raid 5/6 was perfect for storing media as an example. More space, fast read, fast enough write. My point is they had they're use cases and they were great at them. Besides, you can deploy caching to solve the write performance issues and you'll probably not be using any raid without cache.....
O and one last thing, I'm pretty sure freenas defaults to raid6. I think raidz2 or what ever it is in freenas is essentially a raid6; I could be wrong... raid 6 has 2 parities, the 2nd parity makes it different from raid5. Raid5 with a spare which only has parity on it as you described is raid5e or 5i, something like that. I'm of the impression one could add a cold spare to both raid5&6.
Love your videos, been watching a long time!!! Thanks!
Thanks Sc, for performance I should have specified that Raid 5 see a massive performance hit on drive failure. For big arrays it can take days to rebuild and the business will suffer. Hence, why I hate them.
@@ChrisTitusTech yea, I can get behind that. If we're talking performance that's a better reason to not use it. Although, then you have to consider how often you're replacing drives vs how much space is being given up with raid 10. So over 90% of the time you have more free space and good enough performance vs a raid 10 which gives great performance degraded or not at 50% usable space.
For me it's fun to talk these things out. At the end of the day I'm also a raid 10 guy.
@GreyGeek admittedly I've never read the btrfs manual. However, raid 5/6 is not experimental. Maybe under btrfs but those raid levels have been common place in the industry for many years. Raid 5 only relatively recently lost popularity as disk sizes increased. I suck with dates so raid 5 may have died longer than I realize but there was a time when it was one of the go tos and no one would have thought negatively about your raid5 array.
Unless I mistook Chris's statement, I basically heard him say raid5/6 is the devil, and not raid 5/6 under btrfs is the devil.
@GreyGeek ok, I'm following you now!! Yes, I can get behind that also. That's why I only use it on workstations, at home. If I ever pull out a laptop and the disk is dead, well then the disk just died, worse things have happened and life will go on. I've gone to great lengths to assure our laptops are disposable.
Hans Reiser really killed his filesystem!
There is openzfs, its not the same as zfs. Im waiting on the fence for now tho.
Is BTRFS SSD optimized?
Ext4 is fine with me, at least for now.
How about a tutorial transforming an arch system from ext4 to btrfs?
btrfs-convert.
wait there Chris, BTRFS has a lot of commits from Microsoft calling them all bad also affect BTRFS
That's where the performance hits come in 😉
ReFS is a good file system by Microsoft. It's the only file system that Microsoft made that is actually good enough. It's like zfs. I like zfs the best.
If it's good then they must have bought it from somebody else. There is no other possible explanation.
@@Noodles.FreeUkraine they developed it from scratch.
I currently use ext4. I'm paying attention to bcachefs which is **supposed** be a next-gen fs when it's done. From what I've read it will be as fast as ext4 with the features of zfs
You say that, but NTFS / HPFS has backup MFTs, (meaning you usually recover people's data structure).
Macs...? Not so much. And I don't mean with shitty ass Data Rescue and other entry-level DR apps.
With NTFS I usually get the directory (RARELY is it a raw recovery (no hierarchy) recovery.
When recovering a reformatted HFS+ drive..? 50-50 I get the hierarchy (and that's even using a PC-3000).
Ext4 with Rsync snapshots has never let me down
I'm using many different filesystems cause I triple boot Linux as main OS and Mac OS and Windows on my Laptop.
Fat32 for EFI
Raw for windows bootloader
Ntfs for Windows and its recovery
Apfs for MacOS (hackintosh)
Ext4 for kde neon
Linux Swap
and exfat for datatransfer between these systems cause its compatible with all of them.
I use BTRFS from many years and it's fantastic in performance... I also recycled some IDE disks because Btrfs does has a great transparent cache into RAM. And I use it with some USB storage keys because it's tollerant to accidental disconnections (ext4 was always a pain in my experience for that). With BTRFS I can do instant backups and boot my previous OS versions in no time. There is no point for using a Frankenstein-style filesystem like ZFS.
Chris just mixed me with the mud as i have RAID6 ;)
All depends on your needs, and balance of need to cost (and what you can sacrifice).
RAID10 would be much faster for me (8 drives at the moment), but ability of loosing just 1 drive ... (experienced couple time more than 1 drive lost at the same time, or 2nd in time of rebuilding ...). Because of that i have RAID6 with ext4 on my datastore (prior it was NTFS on 2008 R2) - be able to lose 2 drives and not lose data is good (if you need reliability more than performance), and with good hardware like HP P822 its fast and easy to rebuild to spare drives. And always can create RAID60 if it will start to be toooooo slowwww ;)
For me, for now its safer than playing with BTRFS of ZFS - when system will die for some reason i will recreate system and mount whole RAID ones more (no data lose, no stres). And in 1-2 years we will see how it change. For now OpenZFS most likely would be next step if my P822 will be fully supported in HAS mode (for now there are problems with it).
I use two RAID 6's, which come into one giant volume. This has me extra fault tolerance for two drives on each RAID.
RAID60
What about openZFS? Not trying to upstage, but honestly asking after a simple GSearch on ZFS licensing... XFS?
Why hate raid6? You have e.g. 6 disks, including 2 for parity. You get 67% of the physical storage with very high security - 33% of the storage can fail and you still keep all the data.
Raid6 works perfectly with 5 or 7 disks too, why not?
Raid6 is safer than raid10 with 4 disks, giving the same storage ratio - any 2 of 4 disks can fail and you keep the data. With raid10 you can lose 2 disks in the same mirror and everything is gone.
The only case raid10 is better is when you have exactly 4 disks and when performance is more important than slightly better security.
In all other cases raid6 is better.
Raid5 is good (if not the best) for 3 disks.
Unlike for the ignorance.
услышал что автор сказал "zfs - лучшая фс" - просто поставил лайк.
zfs может быть быстрее ext4 за счёт своего кэширования (которое можно очень тонко настроить и сделать ещё быстрее). Если у вас много RAM, то zfs с большим кэшом точно будет гораздо быстрее ext4 (плюсом идёт упрощение конфигурации за счёт отказа от лвм, уход от проблемы исчерпания инод и т.п. )
I heard that the author said “zfs is the best fs” - I just liked it.
zfs can be faster than ext4 due to its caching (which can be very finely tuned and made even faster). If you have a lot of RAM, then zfs with a large ARC will definitely be much faster than ext4 (plus it simplifies the configuration by eliminating the lvm, avoiding the problem of exhausting inodes, etc.)
1) Your statements on RAID6 are factually incorrect. RAID6 is dual parity, which protects against two drive failures in rapid succession, which is important because rebuilding a RAID causes high disk usage on all drives which may trigger a second failure (I have seen it happen more than once (not btrfs)). RAID is not a backup. RAID5 with a hot spare is not RAID6.
2) The statements online about reliability of BTRFS RAID5 & 6 appear to be based on the btrfs wiki, which has not been updated in a very long time. It is unclear whether this is because the situation hasn't changed or just the wiki hasn't been updated.
3) They appear to be describing the RAID write-hole phenomenon, which impacts every RAID type (on every OS) and is why high-end controllers have a second battery. Also in almost all cases a RAID write hole occurrence is not going to damage anything. It probably only matters if you are dealing with financial transactions (the accounting journal in a bank), life safety, etc. It's just another reason you need a backup.
4) Statements about the relative reliability of ZFS vs BTRFS and EXT4 appear to be the difference between marketing people's statements and computing science people's statements.
5) A substantial benefit to BTRFS over ZFS is the ability to add mismatched drives ad-hock. If you are buying a populated server that will have the same drive layout for it's lifetime or can afford to add drives 4+ at a time when more capacity is needed, and know you will be able to get matching replacement drives through the server's lifetime this may not be a factor. If however you are in a SOHO situation where you may add or replace drives one by one with whatever is on the market at the time, BTRFS is a clear winner.
My home server has / on btrfs RAID1 on 2 small SSD (which also have EFI and swap), but /var, /home, /srv as subvolumes on a multidrive btrfs RAID1. It's what I would recommend for other people running a server that may need to expand ad-hock.
I've spent the past month researching software for DIY NAS, and early on decided on TrueNAS (formerly FreeNAS) because I heard great things about its data integrity (because of ZFS) and its ease of use. So, I went about researching DIY hardware. Apparently requires a lot of RAM because of its Adaptive Replacement Cache, and the TrueNAS aficionados insist that the RAM needs to be ECC or you are just asking for trouble, so you have to get a motherboard that supports ECC. Since I was going to all that added expense, I figured I might as well put in a high core count processor and even more RAM and turn it into a full home server. It just turned out to be way more complicated and expensive than the simple DIY home NAS I originally envisioned. Seems like BTRFS is more appropriate for someone on a budget. Now, I'm going back to the drawing board. Maybe I'll get a cheap N100 mini PC and an external enclosure, hopefully connected with eSATA or SAS or similar.
I've used Microsoft file explorer for 30 years! And still don't understand it!!!! IT'S THE BANE OF MY EXISTENCE!!!!!!!
raid10 is horrible.you put 8 disks in a box, sure your performance is great and you can usually recover things if something goes wrong but you lose 4 drives worth of storage instead of using raid6 where you get 6/8 drives worth of storage and 2 disks worth of parity redundancy so if any 2 disks fail in your array, you can still recover your data. - Personally wherever possible I end up using raidz or raidz2 (which is the equivalent of raid5 and raid6 with the benefits of enhanced error checking that zfs brings to the table along with the integrated compression, encryption, snapshots, and volume management). but as you've pointed out, open zfs has some licensing issues with linux and despite it being commonly used, it's future is somewhat nebulous after linus came out and publically refused to add it to the kernel (for licensing reasons).
I never was too much a fan of ZFS or btrfs. They add way too much complexity, deviate way too far from the traditional disk partition/file system paradigm I am familiar with, and in the case of ZFS, it consumes insane resources and has kind of a spotty record on Linux (or basically anything that is not FreeBSD or based on it like MacOS).
I've always been more of a fan of XFS and JFS (especially four years ago when you posted this video). More recently ext4 has earned my respect, and before it ext3 was my go-to filesystem when I just needed a stable, trustworthy general purpose format for my disk that wasn't necessarily excellent at any one thing (such as fast operations of many small files or fast reading of large files).
I didn't even trust btrfs in the slightest till about 2002, and only now would I somewhat trust it enough to use on an everyday system. Now, in 2024, I'd still probably prefer a more traditional partitioning/filesystem setup, but I won't necessarily complain if by default openSUSE tries installing on a single btrfs partition with like a half-dozen logical volumes.
Similarly, I didn't trust ext4 for the longest time either, until Debian and other major distros started supporting it officially for their default installs.
I started using Linux this year and I've used btrfs the whole time and as a new user who started with arch based distros (arco, arch, endeavor) timeshift has saved me a few times and it was super enjoyable configuring and setting things up.
He hates over RAID 5 and 6 so much and prefers the (arguably "better") RAID 10. However, we live in the real world where HDDs cost money. And if you have 4 disks and want some parity, then it makes a huge difference whether I need to buy 1 or 2 more disks , 4. Scale this up to having multiple sets of 4 disks and you are talking big money, because you are essentially paying two times (RAID 6 vs. RAID 10) or 4 times (RAID 5 vs. RAID 10) the money for getting parity. But yeah, if money is not an issue, hell sure I'm gonna opt for RAID 10 every single time.
NTFS on everything
Because I'm too dumb to setup anything that isnt a synology
and no Synology yet, because not enough saved.
Someday, backup... Someday
Yo is that a TNG style display panel in the background showing real-time disk and directory information?
Hello Chris, although I would agree on file systems topic generally, but I'm a bit concern about NTFS... is it really so bad? Of course, FAT/exFAT is crap and shouldn't exist nowadays. But I would totaly disagree on your point at RAID5/RAID6. It's economic way how to build large arrays and it was making more sense in history, when largest reasonably priced HDDs were 1 or 2 TBs. RAID5 is a bit risky business, but RAID6 is safe enough and it's more safe than RAID10, because it will survive 2 random faulty drives, unlike RAID10. I don't consider RAID10 to be safe enough for backup storage as if you meet 2 "the same" faulty drives, your data are gone. Or am I wrong? And regarding the performance, for normal home or small business it will be still good enough.
I know other people commented, but it's true. I don't think this guy understand how RAID works, especially when comparing RAID 6 vs RAID 10. I can speak from experience, RAID 10 is less resilient. I had a RAID 10 system and two drives (the two drives that are mirrors of each other) failed. Because of this, all of our data was lost. With RAID 6, the array would be degraded, but it wouldn't have totally gone kaput.
I have bad experience with four disks in RAID 10. One disk failed and after replace when I start rebuild second disk from this same mirror died - with second disk all my data gone... yep, RAID 10 is great choice.... but not for me...
Interesting video but it did leave me with more questions than answers! It didn't really cover the actual technical differences between the file systems and "NTFS is just bad" really didn't give me much to go on. I would love to hear more about this and the technical nitty-gritty details about the differences.
Also, the bit about RAID seems incorrect: RAID 6 is when the array has dual-parity, not necessarily a hot-spare although you can add one if you wish. This in turn means two disks would need to fail before data is at risk of being lost so when you say you don't believe RAID 6 shouldn't exist I don't think you're thinking of the right RAID.
Either way, I really do enjoy these videos and am learning a lot about Linux so thank you!