TeraByte Unlimited

It was to point out that one is not limited to the default choices. I choose my filesystems on what are fully supported by IfL/IfW.
Cheers
DrT

DrTeeth wrote:
> It was to point out that one is not limited to the default choices. I
> choose my filesystems on what are fully supported by IfL/IfW.
> Cheers
> DrT

I fully understand one is not limited by the default choices; I pointed out Fedora's defaults to indicate that Btrfs is becoming more prevalent, therefore may warrant inclusion in a future IFL release.

I transitioned my ArchLinux system from an EXT4 /root partition to btrfs because btrfs should produce significantly less wear on an SSD. Also because btrfs is practically universally supported by Linux distributions these days, making it a well-established file system in my mind.

Originally I was able to boot from that btrfs /root partition (I use BootIt BM to multiboot Windows 10 and ArchLinux on my desktop hardware). However, simultaneous BootIt BM and Linux Kernel updates (I know, lesson learned) left me in a condition that I couldn't boot my Linux system.

I eventually gave up and had to create an EXT4 /boot partition and recreate my btrfs /root partition from scratch. I keep /home on a separate EXT4 partition on a large spinning disk and I was able to chroot to the btrfs /root partition from the ArchLinux Live system and list all the installed software to ease recreating the /root partition. It still took me the better part of week to go through all that.

I think that if BootIt/IFL fully supported btrfs, I could have avoided the mayhem altogether. The documentation is out there (https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page). It's well past time that Terabyte provide full btrfs support.

Other than producing less wear on an SSD, what else does btrfs bring to the table? The last time I looked I could not find much that would make me switch. I would not move until BIBM supported btrfs in any case.
Cheers
DrT

not sure it produces less wear than any other file system.

TeraByte Support wrote:
> not sure it produces less wear than any other file system.
I thought so. Does not seem logical at all.
Cheers
DrT

Will this always be the case? Or is full Btrfs support planned?