Why would I switch to BTRFS if its key function, system backups are already available for EXT4 users? I'm not going to re-install Arch Linux just to make Timeshift's backup process faster. Besides that, I only use Timeshift when I KNOW the system modifications I make are dangerous.
It’s copy on write. Making the file system **MUCH** more resilient to corruption caused by inturupted writes. It’s nearly impossible to corrupt a file by inturupting a write.
apparently you can convert an existing ext disk to btrfs, pretty easily, and it can be undone easily. no need to reinstall completely. I was with you before, but now I'm thinking about it.
The problem here is a person trying to shoe-horn once file system into the role of another. For a normal desktop OS Ext4 is fine with good performance. But if this person on the desktop computer uses VM, takes snapshots of work, is doing database or other type of work the difference is night and day. A snapshot of a VM your testing in could take 5 minutes on Ext4 while 5 or 6 seconds in BTRFS because it only copies what's changed. Same with databases or backups of the machine as a whole. When BTRFS is understood and used correctly the savings are great and no one would try and compare desktop read/write speed either. You almost always would want to implement NVMe SSD with BTRFS so your actual "read/write" speed isn't noticeable for trivial work. It's like anything else, you pick the proper tool for the job. Ext4 typically on the desktop, BTRFS for machines that use snapshots, frequent backups and for smaller storage spaces that aren't appropriate for ZFS. ZFS is a poor choice compared to BTRFS typically until you have enough disks to make it worth while like 5 disks per vdev and 4 to 5 vdevs that can be striped. People using ZFS on a desktop or small 5 or 6 disk NAS/Server are doing it wrong. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should comes to mind. Use the right tool for the job/task at hand.
Every two years or so I try btrfs again. And then after some time it usually collapses for no obvious reasons and I have to pull the backups and go back to ext4 (which never lost my data. Ever.). I'm now getting a new machine and I ordered that with 8xNVMEs especially with ZFS in mind. But besides playing around with it for evaluation I would never use btrfs for production, yet.
Is it better? I think it "needs more study". I like the idea of copy-on-write. That feature _seems_ to make more sense for SSD, given how SSD handles file editing. Just because btrfs has that feature, doesn't mean I am ready to _rely_ on btrfs as my filesystem. Fedora disagrees. They have made btrfs the default filesystem for Silverblue and, now, Workstation.
@@danr8472 - I have used Arch. But, I never _installed_ Arch. I decided that I did not want to mitigate every update by creating a backup first; to restore if the update caused problems. Like I do with Windows. It _also_ "has a tendency of borking every now and then." I feel the same way about Arch _and_ Windows. :-)
So like, why get a better car when yours already takes you from a to b?The problem with that sort of mindset is it throttles down innovation, people should aspire for better things even something as insignificant as the file system, most won't even notice but it will push innovation towards something better step by step
@@CesarPeron Because I have a full* disk encryption set up, but I didn't want to nest LVM inside of LUKS *full - as in everything but the EFI System Partition is encrypted
Ext4, btrfs or openzfs. Two comments: - Ext4 does NOT protect against crashes/power fails, while writing a file, see paragraph 4. - Openzfs and btrfs can be faster during e.g booting. The OS is compressed at a ratio close to 1:2, so it needs only half the number of disk IO operations to boot the system or to load a program, see also paragraph 5. My current way of working, I run all OSes including the ones in a VM from an ext4 partition of say 20GB :) I run all data from openzfs datapools and I have 3, - a nvme-SSD for my most used VMs; - one 500GB at the end of a 1TB HDD for my ancient archives and - 2x 500GB in Raid-0 on 500GB HDD + 500GB of 1TB, while one of its datasets (super-folder), the one with my private stuff (photos, videos, music.etc) is running with copies=2 (Raid-1). Note that the last 2 HDD based datapools are supported by a 128GB sata-SSD as cache for those 2 datapools, giving them a nice performance boost. Later I explain, why I need this setup, but first my backup. I backup my Host-OS with the Disk Utility once per month, I don't store any resident data there, so worse case I have to rerun 1 month of updates. The back-up takes a few minutes. I snapshot my zfs datapools weekly and afterwards I write those snapshots consisting of the changed records (lz4 compressed) to 2 backups. I live in Santiago de los Caballeros and we have 2 to 20 power fails per week, so I started to notice that I had a lot of corrupted files, while using ext4. Ext4 does NOT protect against crashes/power fails, while writing a file. It overwrites the existing file and if the crash occurs half way the write, you might end up with an inconsistent internal file format (say wma; mp3; jpg; m4a, m4v, etc etc), note that the ext4 disk administration is still consistent. Openzfs and btrfs rewrites the whole file and in the end you have a consistent new file or you still have the unchanged old file. I use openzfs, because it is older, more reliable and above all it has a superior architecture and elegant predictable command line interface, when compared to btrfs. In the past I used openzfs to store my Host-OS too, but the implementation of Ubuntu was very limited compared to e.g FreeBSD. They stopped further development on booting from openzfs, so I abandoned it. I consider to boot the Host OS from a 20GB btrfs partition to reduce the number of disk IO operations during booting. The VMs I will keep/force on ext4, since their virtual disk image (vdi) files are stored on compressed openzfs datapools, compressing it twice is BS. Note that the second time they will boot mainly from the zfs memory cache (L1ARC, also lz4 compressed).
If you have unstable power and no battery backup BTRFS will make things way better. Even without al the extra functionality. Just having compression. File data integrity verification and copy on write makes it so much more resilient to power losses.
10:00 "Limitations" answers the question of this video. ext4 is fine, but Btrfs is the next step from it. On Btrfs, you also can have autodefrag and compress=zstd set in fstab which saves space. Those are features home users might find useful. I like Btrfs for Linux and ZFS for BSD.
Yeah, me like a dumbass liking btrfs for raid: no work, data lost. Never rely on btrfs for anything raid, dont do it. Single diks it is stable, otherwise no.
I'm running Manjaro on BTRFS since several months now, for everyday work, using Davinci Resolve and Corel photo edit software (did same on Win10 before, can't say it was faster, rather slower). Using a quite fast machine with nVidia VGA, 32Gb ram, 5Ghz, NVMe SSD. I also use other PCs with KDE Neon and XT4... But surprisingly all works 100% out of the box so far and no crashes... I do snapshots before every update or install, just in case :) However snapshots takes me 3-4 seconds (on XT4 it takes few minutes), so it's not some kind of problem at all. I hear the XT4 is faster and "better" for desktop use, but it's impossible to notice any differences in my case in speed. Love the btrfs snapshots, all feels so fast and reliable that I will stay using it until I can see any cons for me.
We were discussing this on BDLL last Sunday, the Open Suse users seem to love it, however I think you're right about btrfs best used in the corporate world and I agree it's overkill for an average Linux desktop user. Fedora uses it out of the box, was testing a little bit last week, not sure how the snapshots work though?
It's like taking a industrial garbage truck to throw a empty milk glass lol. Snapshots works kinda how the roll back system work under Windwos, it take a snapshot of your hole system, that you then can roll back to if things go tits up. and that also mean your snapshots can be big, really big lol.
Any system could incorporate snapshots into their package update/upgrade system. Although btrfs _may facilitate_ snapshots, they do not _require_ btrfs. I think if btrfs proves reliable on Fedora, we'll see more distros adopt it as their default filesystem. I prefer to wait and see, then become an "early adopter". Ext4 works fine. As for versioning my files, I'm able to do it _manually_ with "Save as" filenames; i.e. [base-filename+datetime].
@@KentsTechWorld yea on windows it did take lots of space and took a long time to restore... but with timeshift its like a second and the space it takes up is very little compared to windows restore.
Thanks! There's so many kids entering the Linux world nowadays and hyping things up that its hard to filter out what I should genuinely be excited for w/out digging deeper
You are absolutely correct. If you are a home user, close your eyes and point your finger and whichever one you land on is the right file system for you😂. I have tried BTRFS and their is no discernible difference as a desktop user. EXT4 will be on all my desktops. It's tried and true. It has never failed me. But now for a server or an IT professional, I would be using ZFS. The number of benefits are shockingly in favor of using zfs.
I thought about BTRFS for compression. Until I just learned a reason it degrades the performance a lot for a lot of games. It's case sensitive, Proton and WINE depend on the fs being case insensitive. Maybe it's fine if the game will run native.
You are beginning a war😁 I use btrfs plus timeshift on my old laptop and it saved my life more than once. I also use it on a backup pc with a lot of old disk. I'm an amateur and I hate command line 😂
nope i am just making people thing about, that what works for them, may not work for everyone. And that there are still things Ext 4 do better then BTRFS until BTRFS is more mature. I can tell you the same story about EXT4, so do that make EXT4 better :P It have saved my ass many times.
Yes ,sometimes cmd is annoying but you can learn so much and save the day if you are in trouble You can press alt +f2 run a terminal and run nano , top , etc
There are so many mistakes in this video that I can't even go into it. Your idea that snapshots consume a lot of disk space, proves that you don't know what they are and haven't understood the concept of COW. I'm guessing you just looked at how much disk space was reported as being used and thought that meant you were consuming that amount of space on your disk. That isn't the case. Btrfs is an advanced filesystem and it requires the user to learn more. But compared to setting up a similar system based on LVM2 and Ext4, it's really not complicated at all. Just different.
Tell that to my test system that ran out of space cos of snapshot 👍also snapshot os not the biggest reason for people not needing it, it's all depends on what you use your filsystem for, and for the common user it's not needed. And if you research the filesystems you see that other filesystems do some things better. You should also look up the concept of confirmation biased, if you think the data provided in the video is not right, as they are taken from validitet tests. Calling something different is just another word for complicated, and often used to move the goal post and/or water down others experience if it don't fit the reality you want. I have been told by normal users many times it's to much for them and to complicated then just going with ext4, should I just say no it's just different, that would just show a lack of inside in to others experience. But hey being a fanboy is cool 😎 even if it hinder someone to be a critical thinker and look at data over feelings 👍👍
@@KentsTechWorld: You have asserted that all universities, all cloud providers and system administrators are wrong because you ran out of space on your mismanaged system. But the thought never even entered your mind that you might be the one who is wrong. That is the recipe for perpetual ignorance.
@@jeschinstad omg. 1 not all of those use btrfs 2 the snapshot was not why I don't recommend btrfs, it is a small factor. Let me really cut out the video for you. All this is is about is, should someone upgrade to btrfs, where all the facts say it depends on what you do with your system. Your statement is so wrong. All those providers use all kind of filesystems depending on what they do and are needed for, there are not one thing gits all. Go read some studies about filesystems and look at providers and server frams that use xfs, zfs and so on, and why they do it. You seam to not understand the basic of filesystems and what sets them apart and why one is better for one thing then another. You are like the person saying everyone should drive a Ford, cos you say so and this person and this company is 😂😂😂 that argument is so flawed
5 Years from now: Highly compressed Windows 13 ISO file... 64 Terabytes (Home version) lol Gotta have a Linux box with BTRFS just to download Win-Blowz
Is stable and inside kernel, new features and smaller file size. Why not try? But yes, EXT4 still good and you don't need to change. Just like NTFS on windows.
You really don't get the snapshots... You do not snapshot your home directory, it's meant to roll back configuration changes... Not to use as a backup.
you don't understand the video :P i am talking from how people use it. i have a updated video about this that you should look at. What things are meant for and how people are using it sometimes are not the same ;) Just like you assuming rather than asking. You assume i don't know rather than ask if i do, a path to not being taken seriously. And a roll backs can be part of a backup strategy just no one you should relay on, but one you can use in a pinch if your other 3 (minimum) backups that you should have F up. But you are smart and know all this ;)
Nope! Don't need it for the home user... Wait that's me! So no I don't need it... LOL Don't use or care about snapshots. I just backup my home folder and the rest just gets reinstalled... LOL Thanks for the video! LLAP
The video is not about if we need it, but if home users should switch from Ext4 to Btrfs, if they are happy where they are. This is like saying do we need cake, yes we do lol. if you want to make a point, explain yourself. this is not in anyway helpful or explain why you think so lol.
@@KentsTechWorld I was just being flippant, I in now way mean to disparage your video. Being an openSUSE user BTRF snapshots have saved me after poking around my system on more than one occasion.
You should still be able to use rync in TimeShift with ext4. It takes like a few seconds on a good SSD. It's been very robust for system backups in my experience.
Why would I switch to BTRFS if its key function, system backups are already available for EXT4 users?
I'm not going to re-install Arch Linux just to make Timeshift's backup process faster. Besides that, I only use Timeshift when I KNOW the system modifications I make are dangerous.
It’s copy on write. Making the file system **MUCH** more resilient to corruption caused by inturupted writes. It’s nearly impossible to corrupt a file by inturupting a write.
@Voodoo Yam yeah i think the only feature that will lure me into btrfs over ext4+lvm is compression.
apparently you can convert an existing ext disk to btrfs, pretty easily, and it can be undone easily. no need to reinstall completely. I was with you before, but now I'm thinking about it.
The problem here is a person trying to shoe-horn once file system into the role of another. For a normal desktop OS Ext4 is fine with good performance. But if this person on the desktop computer uses VM, takes snapshots of work, is doing database or other type of work the difference is night and day. A snapshot of a VM your testing in could take 5 minutes on Ext4 while 5 or 6 seconds in BTRFS because it only copies what's changed. Same with databases or backups of the machine as a whole. When BTRFS is understood and used correctly the savings are great and no one would try and compare desktop read/write speed either. You almost always would want to implement NVMe SSD with BTRFS so your actual "read/write" speed isn't noticeable for trivial work.
It's like anything else, you pick the proper tool for the job. Ext4 typically on the desktop, BTRFS for machines that use snapshots, frequent backups and for smaller storage spaces that aren't appropriate for ZFS. ZFS is a poor choice compared to BTRFS typically until you have enough disks to make it worth while like 5 disks per vdev and 4 to 5 vdevs that can be striped. People using ZFS on a desktop or small 5 or 6 disk NAS/Server are doing it wrong. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should comes to mind. Use the right tool for the job/task at hand.
Every two years or so I try btrfs again. And then after some time it usually collapses for no obvious reasons and I have to pull the backups and go back to ext4 (which never lost my data. Ever.).
I'm now getting a new machine and I ordered that with 8xNVMEs especially with ZFS in mind.
But besides playing around with it for evaluation I would never use btrfs for production, yet.
I just use what ever the mother ship tells me to use.
Do as we command!!
Is it better?
I think it "needs more study". I like the idea of copy-on-write. That feature _seems_ to make more sense for SSD, given how SSD handles file editing. Just because btrfs has that feature, doesn't mean I am ready to _rely_ on btrfs as my filesystem.
Fedora disagrees. They have made btrfs the default filesystem for Silverblue and, now, Workstation.
My guess is that you never used Arch which has a tendency of borking every now and then. That is when btrfs comes handy.
@@danr8472 - I have used Arch. But, I never _installed_ Arch. I decided that I did not want to mitigate every update by creating a backup first; to restore if the update caused problems.
Like I do with Windows. It _also_ "has a tendency of borking every now and then." I feel the same way about Arch _and_ Windows. :-)
So like, why get a better car when yours already takes you from a to b?The problem with that sort of mindset is it throttles down innovation, people should aspire for better things even something as insignificant as the file system, most won't even notice but it will push innovation towards something better step by step
and missing the point award goes to :D
One reason I picked btrfs for my current laptop is because it will easily allow me to set up multi-boot with just a single partition
Why?✍
@@CesarPeron Because I have a full* disk encryption set up, but I didn't want to nest LVM inside of LUKS
*full - as in everything but the EFI System Partition is encrypted
Ext4, btrfs or openzfs. Two comments:
- Ext4 does NOT protect against crashes/power fails, while writing a file, see paragraph 4.
- Openzfs and btrfs can be faster during e.g booting. The OS is compressed at a ratio close to 1:2, so it needs only half the number of disk IO operations to boot the system or to load a program, see also paragraph 5.
My current way of working, I run all OSes including the ones in a VM from an ext4 partition of say 20GB :) I run all data from openzfs datapools and I have 3,
- a nvme-SSD for my most used VMs;
- one 500GB at the end of a 1TB HDD for my ancient archives and
- 2x 500GB in Raid-0 on 500GB HDD + 500GB of 1TB, while one of its datasets (super-folder), the one with my private stuff (photos, videos, music.etc) is running with copies=2 (Raid-1).
Note that the last 2 HDD based datapools are supported by a 128GB sata-SSD as cache for those 2 datapools, giving them a nice performance boost. Later I explain, why I need this setup, but first my backup.
I backup my Host-OS with the Disk Utility once per month, I don't store any resident data there, so worse case I have to rerun 1 month of updates. The back-up takes a few minutes. I snapshot my zfs datapools weekly and afterwards I write those snapshots consisting of the changed records (lz4 compressed) to 2 backups.
I live in Santiago de los Caballeros and we have 2 to 20 power fails per week, so I started to notice that I had a lot of corrupted files, while using ext4. Ext4 does NOT protect against crashes/power fails, while writing a file. It overwrites the existing file and if the crash occurs half way the write, you might end up with an inconsistent internal file format (say wma; mp3; jpg; m4a, m4v, etc etc), note that the ext4 disk administration is still consistent. Openzfs and btrfs rewrites the whole file and in the end you have a consistent new file or you still have the unchanged old file.
I use openzfs, because it is older, more reliable and above all it has a superior architecture and elegant predictable command line interface, when compared to btrfs. In the past I used openzfs to store my Host-OS too, but the implementation of Ubuntu was very limited compared to e.g FreeBSD. They stopped further development on booting from openzfs, so I abandoned it. I consider to boot the Host OS from a 20GB btrfs partition to reduce the number of disk IO operations during booting. The VMs I will keep/force on ext4, since their virtual disk image (vdi) files are stored on compressed openzfs datapools, compressing it twice is BS. Note that the second time they will boot mainly from the zfs memory cache (L1ARC, also lz4 compressed).
If you have unstable power and no battery backup BTRFS will make things way better. Even without al the extra functionality. Just having compression. File data integrity verification and copy on write makes it so much more resilient to power losses.
10:00 "Limitations" answers the question of this video. ext4 is fine, but Btrfs is the next step from it. On Btrfs, you also can have autodefrag and compress=zstd set in fstab which saves space. Those are features home users might find useful. I like Btrfs for Linux and ZFS for BSD.
Just remember that btrfs is not beamed stable for servers yet 😉
Yeah, me like a dumbass liking btrfs for raid: no work, data lost.
Never rely on btrfs for anything raid, dont do it. Single diks it is stable, otherwise no.
Btrfs feels super sluggish and spams my drive with snapshots 😰😵
I'm running Manjaro on BTRFS since several months now, for everyday work, using Davinci Resolve and Corel photo edit software (did same on Win10 before, can't say it was faster, rather slower). Using a quite fast machine with nVidia VGA, 32Gb ram, 5Ghz, NVMe SSD. I also use other PCs with KDE Neon and XT4... But surprisingly all works 100% out of the box so far and no crashes... I do snapshots before every update or install, just in case :) However snapshots takes me 3-4 seconds (on XT4 it takes few minutes), so it's not some kind of problem at all. I hear the XT4 is faster and "better" for desktop use, but it's impossible to notice any differences in my case in speed. Love the btrfs snapshots, all feels so fast and reliable that I will stay using it until I can see any cons for me.
We were discussing this on BDLL last Sunday, the Open Suse users seem to love it, however I think you're right about btrfs best used in the corporate world and I agree it's overkill for an average Linux desktop user. Fedora uses it out of the box, was testing a little bit last week, not sure how the snapshots work though?
It's like taking a industrial garbage truck to throw a empty milk glass lol. Snapshots works kinda how the roll back system work under Windwos, it take a snapshot of your hole system, that you then can roll back to if things go tits up. and that also mean your snapshots can be big, really big lol.
Any system could incorporate snapshots into their package update/upgrade system. Although btrfs _may facilitate_ snapshots, they do not _require_ btrfs.
I think if btrfs proves reliable on Fedora, we'll see more distros adopt it as their default filesystem. I prefer to wait and see, then become an "early adopter". Ext4 works fine. As for versioning my files, I'm able to do it _manually_ with "Save as" filenames; i.e. [base-filename+datetime].
@@KentsTechWorld yea on windows it did take lots of space and took a long time to restore... but with timeshift its like a second and the space it takes up is very little compared to windows restore.
@@KentsTechWorld hi i will install tumbleweed this week on my computer its come default with btrfs should i change to ext4?
I just found out that its basically a filesystem with timeshift glued into it for the price of making full snapshots take three hours per 100gb.
not really, but kinda
I use it for years. Snapshots saved my system more then once.
i have done backups for over 20 years, and it saved my life more than once :D
Thanks! There's so many kids entering the Linux world nowadays and hyping things up that its hard to filter out what I should genuinely be excited for w/out digging deeper
You don’t need to be excited for anything if you don’t want to boomer
@@michaelfulton1080 lmaoo
You are absolutely correct. If you are a home user, close your eyes and point your finger and whichever one you land on is the right file system for you😂. I have tried BTRFS and their is no discernible difference as a desktop user. EXT4 will be on all my desktops. It's tried and true. It has never failed me. But now for a server or an IT professional, I would be using ZFS. The number of benefits are shockingly in favor of using zfs.
I thought about BTRFS for compression. Until I just learned a reason it degrades the performance a lot for a lot of games. It's case sensitive, Proton and WINE depend on the fs being case insensitive. Maybe it's fine if the game will run native.
I use btrfs because you can never apply too much butter imo
Occasional porn? occasional?
joking aside, that line killed me lol
Also, really good video, appreciate the frank breakdown
What editor are you using?
Thanks!
Damn you are reading my mind.
*Homer Simpson:* I know you can read _my thoughts,_ boy. Meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow. lmao
You are beginning a war😁 I use btrfs plus timeshift on my old laptop and it saved my life more than once. I also use it on a backup pc with a lot of old disk. I'm an amateur and I hate command line 😂
nope i am just making people thing about, that what works for them, may not work for everyone. And that there are still things Ext 4 do better then BTRFS until BTRFS is more mature.
I can tell you the same story about EXT4, so do that make EXT4 better :P It have saved my ass many times.
@@KentsTechWorld Yes I understand your pov. Anyways it's a very niche FS
Yes ,sometimes cmd is annoying but you can learn so much and save the day if you are in trouble You can press alt +f2 run a terminal and run nano , top , etc
Thanks ❤️
There are so many mistakes in this video that I can't even go into it. Your idea that snapshots consume a lot of disk space, proves that you don't know what they are and haven't understood the concept of COW. I'm guessing you just looked at how much disk space was reported as being used and thought that meant you were consuming that amount of space on your disk. That isn't the case. Btrfs is an advanced filesystem and it requires the user to learn more. But compared to setting up a similar system based on LVM2 and Ext4, it's really not complicated at all. Just different.
Tell that to my test system that ran out of space cos of snapshot 👍also snapshot os not the biggest reason for people not needing it, it's all depends on what you use your filsystem for, and for the common user it's not needed. And if you research the filesystems you see that other filesystems do some things better. You should also look up the concept of confirmation biased, if you think the data provided in the video is not right, as they are taken from validitet tests. Calling something different is just another word for complicated, and often used to move the goal post and/or water down others experience if it don't fit the reality you want. I have been told by normal users many times it's to much for them and to complicated then just going with ext4, should I just say no it's just different, that would just show a lack of inside in to others experience. But hey being a fanboy is cool 😎 even if it hinder someone to be a critical thinker and look at data over feelings 👍👍
@@KentsTechWorld: Remain ignorant.
@@jeschinstad if you must.
@@KentsTechWorld: You have asserted that all universities, all cloud providers and system administrators are wrong because you ran out of space on your mismanaged system. But the thought never even entered your mind that you might be the one who is wrong. That is the recipe for perpetual ignorance.
@@jeschinstad omg. 1 not all of those use btrfs 2 the snapshot was not why I don't recommend btrfs, it is a small factor. Let me really cut out the video for you. All this is is about is, should someone upgrade to btrfs, where all the facts say it depends on what you do with your system. Your statement is so wrong. All those providers use all kind of filesystems depending on what they do and are needed for, there are not one thing gits all. Go read some studies about filesystems and look at providers and server frams that use xfs, zfs and so on, and why they do it. You seam to not understand the basic of filesystems and what sets them apart and why one is better for one thing then another. You are like the person saying everyone should drive a Ford, cos you say so and this person and this company is 😂😂😂 that argument is so flawed
5 Years from now: Highly compressed Windows 13 ISO file... 64 Terabytes (Home version) lol
Gotta have a Linux box with BTRFS just to download Win-Blowz
Is stable and inside kernel, new features and smaller file size. Why not try? But yes, EXT4 still good and you don't need to change. Just like NTFS on windows.
You really don't get the snapshots... You do not snapshot your home directory, it's meant to roll back configuration changes... Not to use as a backup.
you don't understand the video :P i am talking from how people use it. i have a updated video about this that you should look at.
What things are meant for and how people are using it sometimes are not the same ;)
Just like you assuming rather than asking.
You assume i don't know rather than ask if i do, a path to not being taken seriously.
And a roll backs can be part of a backup strategy just no one you should relay on, but one you can use in a pinch if your other 3 (minimum) backups that you should have F up.
But you are smart and know all this ;)
Nope! Don't need it for the home user... Wait that's me! So no I don't need it... LOL
Don't use or care about snapshots. I just backup my home folder and the rest just gets reinstalled... LOL
Thanks for the video!
LLAP
Ok we get it ... some programs don't work... ok...
Are you Danish? Your accent reminds me a lot of an old family member
Yes I am 👍
Do we need BTRFS? yes, yes we do.
The video is not about if we need it, but if home users should switch from Ext4 to Btrfs, if they are happy where they are. This is like saying do we need cake, yes we do lol. if you want to make a point, explain yourself. this is not in anyway helpful or explain why you think so lol.
@@KentsTechWorld I was just being flippant, I in now way mean to disparage your video. Being an openSUSE user BTRF snapshots have saved me after poking around my system on more than one occasion.
dam, I wish I watched before installing fedora. now Timeshift don't work properly. Thanks for the video
You should still be able to use rync in TimeShift with ext4. It takes like a few seconds on a good SSD. It's been very robust for system backups in my experience.
3:01
7 deg that's cold
Btrfs is great
cake is great
@@KentsTechWorld - _All cake???_ I don't think that's true. :-P
@@KentsTechWorld Then you can eat cake : )