These days there isn't really any reason to avoid btrfs. It's stable, and has a lot of nice features.
post
I spent my weekend driving out to my grandparents place to fix her BTRFS partition on her laptop. This is after I had a complete partition failure on a brand new hard drive last spring, which has since been running just fine since with ext4. Make of that as you will.
A beautiful picture I took in the process

@sbeak ext4 unless you have a concrete use case for btrfs, like snapshots on a backup drive etc... just my two cents
Noted. But then why does Fedora ship with btrfs then, given that they are catering to a mainstream audience?
Btrfs has a bunch of features and is one of the contenders for the "next" filesystem. Ext4 is utterly bulletproof though and has good enough perf so it's still your best bet unless you specifically want to use the advanced btrfs features.
Because Fedora likes to adapt the newest stuff very early. While it's not like "very early" for BTRFS anymore, its still exceptional unusual to have it as the default in a mainstream distribution. And they want to benefit from the feature set of BTRFS, so it makes sense to use it as the default. Why shouldn't the mainstream benefit from quick snapshots and backups? I don't see the argument "are catering to mainstream audience" as to not use BTRFS?
I would say, if you want benefit from the features of BTRFS, then go for it. But you have to read a bit what it can do, and use tools and set it up to get the most out of it I think. EXT4 on the other hand is proven and is a setup and forget experience. I chose EXT4 when installing EndeavourOS, because I read a few things about BTRFS that made me think twice and also I don't need the features too. So, if you don't know and have to ask the community, then the best would be to us EXT4, unless you know why you want to have BTRFS features.
I would recommend btrfs at this point. I use it for my OS harddrive and I would also use it for my second harddrive except I don't want to format it, so it's still running ext4.
Theoretically btrfs runs slower then ext4 but you won't see it outside of benchmarks. Btrfs can also do integrity checks and healing so your drive (might) last longer, ultimately, that one depends on what exactly is wrong with it.
BTFS snapshots are such a huge improvement and a live saver if you like to tinker on your system. Also great for backups, which you should make. Use snapper and similar tools.
I’d only recommend ext* for spinning hard drives. For ancient slow machines, go with XFS or ReiserFS (if any distro still supports that even).
Dual-booting, so I'm stuck with ext4.
I dual-boot with btrfs, Windows just needed a reminder that it's ok to use something other then NTFS.
What does reminding Windows involve? I also dual boot btrfs, but Windows never sees my btrfs since it's on a LUKS encrypted partition, so I am not familiar with needing to do this
https://youtube.com/watch?v=h6fc-3CCXbA&pp=ygUNd2luZG93cyBidHJmcw%3D%3D
I just followed the steps of this kind gentleman and it worked. After 1:40 he shows the steps you need to do on the windows side with winbtrfs.
I have experienced both cases where btrfs mounted read only for no good reason and cases where ext4 did not detect my storage medium had corrupted my data. I have chosen btrfs for data integrity but both options have upsides.
ext4 is faster, I always use it for /
As for data I use btrfs because it has checksumming and it can detect corrupted files, while ext4 just lets you copy a corrupted file to your backup.
I've had some issues with btrfs, in the past but was many years ago, probably not relevant anymore.
all 24 comments