F2FS Brings Minor Improvements With Linux 6.3

[phoronix]

Phoronix: F2FS Brings Minor Improvements With Linux 6.3

While in recent days there has been much talk around the new, experimental and currently out-of-tree SSDFS file-system for NVMe ZNS drives, when it comes to a modern flash-optimized Linux file-system today, the Flash-Friendly File-System (F2FS) continues handling that space well and has been battle-tested via deployment on Android devices and more. With Linux 6.3, F2FS continues to be refined with more fixes and other minor enhancements...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.3-F2FS

[Flaburgan]

Is it worth to use it instead of EXT4 for normal office & gaming usage? Can I use it easily with Ubuntu or Mint? IIRC only EXT4 or ZFS are available in the Ubuntu installer right?

[johnp]

Is it worth to use it instead of EXT4 for normal office & gaming usage? Can I use it easily with Ubuntu or Mint? IIRC only EXT4 or ZFS are available in the Ubuntu installer right?

F2FS needs specific adjustments for the flash storage you have.

It is usually used in Android smartphones, etc.

For desktop use, ext4, XFS are the usual options.

Others also use Btrfs and ZFS.

[RejectModernity]

Is it worth to use it instead of EXT4 for normal office & gaming usage? Can I use it easily with Ubuntu or Mint? IIRC only EXT4 or ZFS are available in the Ubuntu installer right?

I've been using it with compression for two years on arch, nothing broke so far.

[arun54321]

Is it worth to use it instead of EXT4 for normal office & gaming usage? Can I use it easily with Ubuntu or Mint? IIRC only EXT4 or ZFS are available in the Ubuntu installer right?

Yes. it is good if you use it on SSD.

[brucethemoose]

Is it worth to use it instead of EXT4 for normal office & gaming usage? Can I use it easily with Ubuntu or Mint? IIRC only EXT4 or ZFS are available in the Ubuntu installer right?

I use it as my root fs. But its not worth the hassle of switching to if you are already on ext4, and there are some quirks to look out for. For instance, GRUB2 doesn't like it, and checksumming/casefolding is not enabled by default (and must be enabled when you first create the partition).

[brucethemoose]

I've been using it with compression for two years on arch, nothing broke so far.

The compression isnt worth using IMO. It doesn't save space, and it does significantly hit performance even when using lz4.


It also wont even compress anything by default without the correct config...

[RejectModernity]

The compression isnt worth using IMO. It doesn't save space, and it does significantly hit performance even when using lz4.

It saves write cycles tho

[sinepgib]

For instance, GRUB2 doesn't like it

I've been booting my netbook with F2FS and GRUB2 for years. Maybe you mean syslinux? I wanted to use that at the time and it wasn't supported.

[stormcrow]

I've been booting my netbook with F2FS and GRUB2 for years. Maybe you mean syslinux? I wanted to use that at the time and it wasn't supported.

No, he probably means GRUB2. Not all distro GRUB2 packages are created equal. I remember when I first started using XFS in earnest that Ubuntu's version wouldn't support /boot on a partition with XFS but OpenSUSE did. I just began using an ext4 FS on a separate /boot partition regardless of distro afterward so I never see the issue any longer, and don't know if Ubuntu derivatives still have those exceptions. I just know they're usually slow to integrate new filesystem support. ZFS being a glaring exception to the rule. Neither F2FS nor NILFS2 are supported in 22.04 based installers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the past he couldn't boot from a F2FS filesystem.

I have an experimental install on a laptop using NILFS2 and it took having to install to ext4 on root then setting up NILFS2 manually for /home and /var afterward. I probably won't keep it. I'm nervous about having unencrypted filesystems on laptops, even ones I don't take anywhere.