Linux Technology Explained

Ext4 vs. Btrfs: Which Linux File System Should You Use?

Bertel King Updated 18-03-2020

Quite honestly, not enough people consider which file system to use for their computers.


Windows and macOS users have little reason to look, since they really have only one choice for their system—NTFS and HFS+, respectively. Linux, on the other hand, has plenty of different file system options, with the current default being the Fourth Extended Filesystem (ext4).

There’s an ongoing push to change the default file system to the B-Tree File System (btrfs). But is btrfs better, and when will we see distributions making the change?

What Do File Systems Do?

File cabinet
Image Credit: Maksym Kaharlytskyi/Unsplash

Like physical filing systems such as folders and cabinets, digital file systems manage files. They control how your operating system stores data that isn’t in use, what other information (known as metadata) is attached to the data, who or what has access to data, and so on.

File systems operate in the background. Like the rest of an operating system’s kernel, they’re largely invisible in everyday use. File managers, the applications that you use to manage files, mostly operate in the same way regardless of which file system is running underneath.


File systems are incredibly complex to code. Developers continually revise these systems to include more functionality while becoming more efficient.

Why Switch File Systems?

No code is good for all use cases, and that applies to file systems as well. Some file systems excel for different reasons. The File Allocation Table (FAT) file system is one that nearly every modern operating supports.

USB flash drives and SD cards use the FAT system so that your computer can read them regardless of if you’re running Linux, Windows, macOS, or some other operating system.

But these days, FAT isn’t as reliable or powerful as some of the other file systems that have since been developed. So while you will see FAT on portable media, you won’t see it managing the data on your hard drive.


Apple, perhaps unsurprisingly, is known for making file systems that only work with its devices Which Mac File System Is Best for an External Drive? Formatting a hard drive for use with your Mac? Here are your macOS file system options and how to pick the best one for you. Read More .

Linux’s Current File System

Most versions of desktop Linux (known as distributions, or “distros” for short) default to the ext4 file system. ext4 has been an improvement to the ext3 file system, which was an improvement over the ext2 file system before it.

ext4 has proven to be a very robust file system, but it is made from an aging code base. Some Linux users seek features which ext4 does not handle on its own. There is software that takes care of some of those desire, but being able to do those things on the file system level would provide better performance. Hence the desire for btrfs.

Understanding ext4: Pros and Cons

GNOME Disks displaying ext4 formatting option


Ext4’s limits remain pretty impressive. The largest volume/partition you can make with ext4 is 1 exbibyte—the equivalent of roughly 1,152,921.5 terabytes. The maximum file size is 16 tebibytes—or roughly 17.6 terabytes, which is much bigger than any hard drive a regular consumer can currently buy.

Ext4 is known to bring speed improvements over ext3 by using multiple different techniques. Like most modern file systems, it is a journaling file system, which means that it keeps a “journal” of where files are located on the disk and of any other changes to the disk.

Despite all of its features, it does not support transparent compression, transparent encryption, or data deduplication. Snapshots are technically supported, but that feature is experimental at best.

Theodore Ts’o, a developer who played a key role in ext4’s creation, described ext4 as a stop-gap release based on outdated 1970s technology and believed Btrfs offered a better way forward. That was over a decade ago.


Understanding Btrfs: Pros and Cons

GNOME Disks displaying btrfs formatting option

Btrfs, which can be pronounced as “Butter FS”, “Better FS”, or “B-Tree FS”, is a newer file system remade from scratch. Btrfs exists because the developers wanted to expand the functionality of a file system to include additional functionality such as pooling, snapshots, and checksums.

The project began at Oracle, but other major companies have since played a part in development. The list includes Facebook, Netgear, Red Hat, and SUSE.

While enhancements found in btrfs can benefit general consumers, some of the additional features are of more interest to enterprise use. Such functionality is for more demanding use cases that often require more durable hard drives The 6 Most Reliable Hard Drives According to Server Companies There's nothing worse than hard drive failure. Protect your data by choosing one of the most reliable hard drives. Read More as well.

For organizations that use very large programs with massive databases, having a seemingly continuous file system across multiple hard drives could make consolidation of data much easier. Data deduplication would reduce the amount of actual space data would occupy, and data mirroring would become easier when there is a single, broad file system that needs to be mirrored.

Of course, you can still choose to create multiple partitions so that you don’t have to mirror everything. The maximum partition size of a btrfs file system is 16 exbibytes, and the maximum file size is also 16 exbibytes.

Considering that btrfs will be able to span over multiple hard drives, it’s a good thing that it supports 16 times more drive space than ext4.

Have Linux Distros Made the Transition?

Btrfs has been a stable part of the Linux kernel since 2013, and you can reformat your hard drives using the file system today. But btrfs is not by any stretch the default Linux file system. Most distros continue to default to ext4.

Why? Files are the most important bits of data on your hard drive. Personal data is irreplaceable. You can reinstall an OS and redownload apps, but without a backup, lost files are gone for good. That’s why it’s crucial that a file system be proven reliable before switching millions of people over to using it by default.

Ext4 may be old and arguably crusty, but it has also proven to be resilient and reliable. If the power goes out and your computer goes dark, odds are ext4 will have kept your saved data safe.

For most people, such situations are the single most important factor. It’s not about how well a file system performs when things are going well, it’s about what happens when things go wrong.

One prominent distro has determined that enough time has passed to make a switch. openSUSE now uses btrfs as the default for the /root partition where the operating system lies. For the /home partition that houses your personal files, however, openSUSE has decided to go with the XFS file system instead.

So no, the transition hasn’t gone quite as expected. But as we’ve seen with the Wayland display server Using Linux With Wayland? What You Need to Know You might have heard about the Wayland display server. Here's what that is and how it affects your Linux computer. Read More , new technologies sometimes take a long time to proliferate across the Linux landscape.

Related topics: File System, Linux Tips, Ubuntu.

Affiliate Disclosure: By buying the products we recommend, you help keep the site alive. Read more.

Whatsapp Pinterest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. dragonmouth
    March 18, 2020 at 4:55 pm

    "openSUSE now uses btrfs as the default for the /root partition where the operating system lies. For the /home partition that houses your personal files, however, openSUSE has decided to go with the XFS file system instead"
    If BTRFS is so reliable, so advanced, why not use it for all partitions, including /home? Even systemd, which many criticize, has a quicker/wider acceptance among distro developers.

    • nikita
      June 28, 2020 at 4:56 am

      hello i run opensuse and its been useing btrfs for home folder for years now. that is outdated information

  2. heyland
    October 26, 2016 at 11:52 am

    It has very tiny chance to lose data when copy a file, but I'm the unlucky one who lost an important file.

  3. Irish Jack
    March 17, 2016 at 2:45 am

    I used Btrfs in the past and found it very stable and reliable. The only reason for any slow down is cause the hard drive is probably failing.

  4. MasterPreniu
    March 1, 2016 at 12:16 am

    I'm using BTRFS since kernel 2.6.32, quite a long time.
    I definetly love this FS.
    Waiting for the new compression algo which will make it ennough better ;).

  5. Inukaze
    March 31, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    30 / Mar / 2015 : You can use brtfs (stable) in distros Like ArchLinux and derivates , its my prefer know , well i really wanna to test reiser4 again with this distro but during the installation i can't install the depedencies for use it

  6. beavis
    January 5, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    Code doesn't age numbuts

    • Anonymous
      August 8, 2016 at 5:26 pm

      Of course code ages. Do you think the drivers for a 10MB SCSI drive from the '80s would be very usable with a RAID5 system? If you don't like calling it "aging", it can be called "obsolete" or "outdated".

    • Keith
      September 27, 2016 at 4:56 pm

      Aging is a natural part of our universe. Virtually everything, including concepts, works of art, books, and computer code ages. It is apparent that even information ages, when one considers a general wont make battle plans on old information. Aging isn't well defined but it helps to know a few attributes of those things that do not age are things that are never: replaced, made obsolete, forgotten, or broken down over the passing of time.

      It is sad that some people feel they must use a denigrating term when offering a correction to strangers on the internet. It adds no logic to the argument. Some times people use it to shock the target of the denigrating term into accepting new ideas. But, shock is wholly unneeded in initial contact, especially when logic is sufficient. Worse case, in the eyes of every one that reads these very public comments, the denigrator becomes the very thing he used to describe the other person, when his argument fails against counter argument.

    • OldFartIBMer
      November 3, 2016 at 12:05 am

      Said the iSeries Administrator....

  7. survivalmonkey
    October 20, 2012 at 2:50 am

    Been using btrfs on a production laptop for about a year now. I have 3 subvolumes on 2 drives: / and /vm on drive #1 and /home on Drive #2.

    As much as I love snapshots and all the rest of what btrfs brings to the party, I'm in the process of re OSing this machine and using ext4. I've never experienced corruption the system has degraded in performance to the point of being frustrating. I've had autodefrag set in fstab for random writes but I think that overall, the fs is defragmented to the point of beginning to trip over itself. Because of the placement of my vmware machines, I cannot perform the btrfs online defragmentation and this is something that I had not realized when I chose to experiment.

    I love the concept and gave it my best shot, gaining new features with every new kernel but I have to, sadly, throw in the towel.

    • Joshua Gnitecki
      September 28, 2017 at 10:12 pm

      On a SSD drive the performance wouldn't be bad (defragmentation isn't even a issue on that type of storage medium)!

  8. Ahmed Khalil
    September 7, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Linux steps is good but still very slow to win the war with windows and mac

  9. Dave
    August 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    I use BTRFS on the desktop, it's terrible, and I am migrating back to ext4 (bit of a pain with 2TB of data). Huge huge huge IOWAITs all the time, sluggish desktop. Only using a 5400RPM disk for my /home, but it's ridiculous the amount of times Linux completely blocks everything else for some stupid write, and then there are occasional panics from some btrfs codepath. This is on an 8GB RAM desktop.

    Also, it's unstable, with some bad luck, you can not fix it (no tools available yet).

    The premise is of course great, I'd love to have ZFS also for my desktop. Since none of the Linux filesystems have proper end to end checkums or easy snapshots (not the LVM mess) I wouldn't recommend it on a server either, at least not one with data you care about. Funny how people bitch about it here in the comments, it's the ONLY serious filesystem for a server where you care about your data!

    Also, NTFS is a very good filesystem, you have atomic transactions! All filesystems get fragmented, some faster than others due to their design (think FAT), some have external tools, some avoid it with hugely delayed writes, and some fix it in the background. ext3/4 are fine for desktop but no need for MS bashing, it's not 1999 anymore.

    • Joshua Gnitecki
      September 28, 2017 at 10:17 pm

      On a SSD, defragmentation isn't even an issue!

  10. mitchbw
    August 7, 2012 at 5:52 am

    would like to see better and more easy file recovery, in my experience ext 2 is my far easier to recover then ext4. and even then its no easy task.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 14, 2012 at 6:22 am

      True; thank goodness I haven't had to really attempt data recovery yet!

  11. Alex Livingstone
    August 3, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    I never really liked EXT4. I'll be interested to see the changes in BTRFS

    • Danny Stieben
      August 14, 2012 at 6:21 am

      Really? What didn't you like about it?

  12. Jonathan
    August 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    I'm just interested in whether the btrfs file system store data more efficiently than ext4. The best thing about Linux in my opinion is that it was one man's desire to start from scratch using the available knowledge of computers at the time and implement the things in the root that MS had to do with additional features, add-ons, patches and upgrades.

    Linux has always tried to keep things clean, small and efficient and going with that theme I would want the "better FS" to be cleaner, smaller, faster and more efficient with added flexibility that moving forward with a design brings with it. Such attributes would allow for more saved data on the same size hard drives.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 14, 2012 at 6:21 am

      I'm not exactly what you mean by data being stored more efficiently...all file systems will use the available hard drive space. Any more is physically impossible. If you mean through compression, yes, btrfs can do that by itself.

      • Charlie Gunz
        November 20, 2012 at 4:06 pm

        He may be talking about DeDupe. Now THAT'S what I call using a disk efficiently. if I have 17 seasons of South Park stored on a drive, and they all use the same video compression, chances are there will be tons of duplicated data, including parts of the same opening sequence over and over and over. even if those same parts of the video are not exactly the same, lots of that data will be. With DeDupe techniques, that data will be stored once. Much like compression.

  13. Timothy Liem
    August 3, 2012 at 8:53 am

    I'll stick with everything the distros I use decided to use, because I regularly reinstall my notebook every release. right now, I'm using Ubuntu 12.04 and Fedora 17 and they both do great in my machine. I think I'll stick a bit longer with Ubuntu since it's a LTS release.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 14, 2012 at 6:19 am

      That's fine. No need to switch before the distros decide on it because right now btrfs is still technically unstable (although I'm running it...not terribly stable yet).

  14. Justin Fortin
    August 2, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    My issue is support of btrfs on Windows, or it's lack thereof.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 14, 2012 at 6:19 am

      What would you need to use Windows for? Data sharing between OSes?

      • Joshua Gnitecki
        September 28, 2017 at 10:21 pm

        I multi-boot between 'Linux-main' and 'Gaming-os' (Windows' one strength)

  15. Richard Borkovec
    August 1, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    btrfs looks like it could be pronounced "butter face," haha, but besides the odd abbreviation, it looks very promising. Hopefully it matures enough and gets implemented so the home user can feel it's benefits without any hassle. If you talked to most people about the architecture of their system, they'd be completely puzzled, so it's really imperative that things like this get implemented with no hassle.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 2, 2012 at 12:09 am

      Very true. Not only to make it easier but to make it faster to configure as well.

  16. Anandu B Ajith
    August 1, 2012 at 10:02 am

    I Love Linux

  17. thilina1024
    July 31, 2012 at 11:21 am

    This is the first time I heard about Btrfs. Thanks for the article.

  18. SuperJdynamite
    July 30, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    If you're going to mirror or stripe you should probably be looking to RAID for a solution as opposed to doing it in software.

    • Chris Cowley
      July 31, 2012 at 8:21 pm

      Not anymore you shouldn't! RAID is old hat - a 2TB disk will take several days to re-build. Add to that it is mathematically very certain to fail with out telling you. BTRFS does the replication at a file level, so is much more likely to successfuly re-build in a timely fashion. explains why.

      • Danny Stieben
        August 2, 2012 at 12:08 am

        Thanks for the link, Chris!

  19. Bucky
    July 30, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    What I like best about btrfs is the btrfs snapshot. Yes, you can do snapshots in LVM, but unlike LVM, you DON'T have to specify the amount of space by which the btrfs snapshot can diverge from the master before it goes up in a greasy ball of flame.

    So you can have a much larger pool of snapshots (tell your boss: "Live backups").

    • Danny Stieben
      August 2, 2012 at 12:07 am

      I'm happy about the snapshot features as well. Should work a lot better than Windows' System Restore. ;)

  20. Joe Felisky
    July 30, 2012 at 2:34 pm


    Both OpenSUSE 12.1 and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP2 include btrfs for 6+ months. SUSE has added some very nice tools for working with btrfs, that can be found here:

    There is more to Linux than Fedora and Ubuntu ...


    • Danny Stieben
      August 2, 2012 at 12:05 am

      Ubuntu and Fedora have included them as well, but those tools do look nice.

      It will be big news though when a distribution will offer btrfs as its default file system first. Currently it looks like it'll be Fedora.

  21. Dudley Overbey
    July 30, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    What about SUN/Oracle's ZFS filesystem?
    Doesn't it contain many of the attributes btrfs has?

    • Elder-Geek
      July 30, 2012 at 7:52 pm

      I am looking at adding a new file server at work and have been looking at both btfs and zfs.

      ZFS is great as long as you have lots of memory and you keep adding disks not take them away. It scales very well, is mature. As long as you boot from ext4 on another drive or flash drive any linux can add the zfs kernel modules.

      btfs will not scale as well. But is much better on memory. It you want to use 3 or 4 or 5 drives and do not want to throw scads of memory at it, bfts is the way to go. If you want 8 or 9 drives, and be able to survive 3 drives going out at one time, ZFS is your only choice.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 2, 2012 at 12:03 am

      Elder-Geek seems to know what he's talking about. He'll know a bit more about ZFS than I currently do.

    • Doc Mock
      December 10, 2012 at 10:12 pm

      I am required to do many benchmarks for work. Most of the bench marks include file system tests. Zfs is a big memory user. Even using it in a back end file storage device for NFS or FC results in poor performance. In order to get equivalent performance between the filesystems admins need to add mulitple SSD cache devices. On a local machine the responsiveness issues are masked by caching performed by the COW filesystem. Btrfs is about 35% faster in most filesystem benchmarks.

  22. Elder-Geek
    July 30, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    It will come to pass that the file check tools will work, that it will provide better speed, be more robust than ext4 and eventually adopted by the entire Linuxsphere.

    A better question is btfs vs zfs. That my friends depends very much on where home users are going. If home users want to keep adding more storage to their system in the form of multiple drives, which one will they choose?

    ZFS is stable, mature and awesome...but eats memory like a pig. If I was setting up a box to do nothing else but serve files, I would want a system with 8 gigs of RAM and to use zfs to manage a large array of drives.

    If I wanted to actually use a computer for day to day work and NOT have go dedicate 6 gigs of RAM to working my disk array, bfts will be the way to go.

    Really how many small businesses or home users are interested in building a working desktop system with a array of 4 to 10 hard drives set up so you only get 70% of the storage space, but can survive a drive failure and can add more drives and have your files adjust across all the drives. These arrays don't shrink well, you and add drives but not remove them. And your data no longer exists on one disk, but only as part of a working array of disks.

    BTFS will replace EXT4, but will desktop users ever embrace it's most important features? And for those that care about those features, will ZFS always remain a better choice?

    • Danny Stieben
      August 2, 2012 at 12:02 am

      Great questions indeed. I can't say much because I'm not well-informed about ZFS, but there definitely is a big focus on btrfs compared to ZFS and that will probably make itself more noticeable later on, especially when it comes to the number of users.

  23. Stephan
    July 30, 2012 at 8:37 am

    In my experience new file system features or any other underlying features have no meaning to end users unless they are made available to the end user in a convenient and easily understandable way. This can be done via a well designed and double blind tested GUI or via some other less or non technical interface (HUD, Voice etc).

    Therefore the usefulness or utility of the BTRFS to the end user will depend on projects like Gnome, KDE etc. This requires involvement on their part... a lot of involvement.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 1, 2012 at 11:57 pm

      I agree. Of course, there will always be those hardcore Linux users who won't need that and can make use of the features right away, but it's a very valid point if Linux is to gain market adoption with those new features.

  24. Shannon_Moss
    July 30, 2012 at 8:21 am

    How do ZFS compare to ext / btrfs,I heard it is superior to both of them,I have used ext 3/4 but not the others.

    • Danny Stieben
      August 1, 2012 at 11:56 pm

      I actually don't know a lot about ZFS right now, but I might write another article pertaining to ZFS once I know enough. ;)

  25. Chris Hoffman
    July 30, 2012 at 4:40 am

    Hm, btrfs includes pooling like LVM? Interesting. I haven't been paying attention to btrfs at all.

    • ken
      July 31, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      yes, it supports drive pools and even raid (thought raid5/6 aren't done yet AFAIK).

      On new system builds, I've been using btrfs...prior to that, I've been doing LVM/RAID1 mostly...

    • Danny Stieben
      August 1, 2012 at 11:55 pm

      I'm pretty happy about that feature, actually. A little curious as to how it'll be implemented and configured during an install, but it sounds awesome. :D

  26. Pedro Oliva
    July 29, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    interesting :)

  27. Kenny Jackson
    July 28, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    Hopefully Fedora 18 will have a version of Grub that supports btrfs so that we don't have to have a separate /boot partition. I know that that's good form anyway, but it annoys me.

    • Danny Stieben
      July 30, 2012 at 1:11 am

      Don't worry, I usually still use a single partition for everything, and that's REALLY bad form. But I think I'm using btrfs on my main desktop, and I don't believe I'm using a separate boot partition, although I'll be able to check in about a week. Don't have access to it right now.

      • Benjamin Hodgetts
        August 8, 2012 at 7:21 am

        Careful with that. I was using BTRFS as the single partition on a drive and everything was fine until I enabled compression, at which point syslinux (the boot manager I was using) failed to load the kernel anymore as it doesn't support BTRFS compression. I'm not sure about the state of GRUB2 in this regard.

        • Danny Stieben
          August 14, 2012 at 7:59 am

          Oh, nice pointer. I assume the same is with GRUB2, but I'm not sure. Safer to just assume it doesn't though. :P

  28. App Crush
    July 28, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    Makes very much sense! Thanks!

    • Danny Stieben
      July 30, 2012 at 1:10 am

      Glad you enjoyed it! :)

  29. GodSponge
    July 28, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Microsoft made a file system that could span drives in xp, but i ALWAYS had problems with it. If a hard drive failed it broke everything. I think they abandoned it because it sucked. I hope this one is better than that one at least.

    • Danny Stieben
      July 30, 2012 at 1:08 am

      Do you mean the Drive Extender technology which they used in Windows Home Server? Because I've never heard of it being available in XP directly.

    • DD
      July 30, 2012 at 12:55 pm

      If you mean dynamic disk, it simply appends disks (JBOD) to the file system. If you do this without any redundancy (RAID), of course you will lose your entire file system if a disk goes bad, this is not unique to Windows.

  30. ernest
    July 28, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    my first hard didk had 20 Mb ..and I thought it was huge !

  31. Eric Wardowski
    July 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    When it comes to a corrupted hard drive, how do these Linux file systems stack up against NTFS and HFS+ for data recovery? I've worked with all three systems, however have never had to attempt data recovery on either Mac or Linux. (knock on wood)

    • Quinton Reeves
      July 29, 2012 at 4:13 am

      Haha. Still a good idea nonetheless :)

    • Danny Stieben
      July 30, 2012 at 1:06 am

      Data recovery should be perfectly fine, as NTFS, HFS+, ext4, and btrfs are all journaling file systems. I know ext4 was also created as an update to ext3 which made the possibility of corrupting the file system much smaller.

      • David Kastrup
        July 30, 2012 at 4:30 am

        A journaling file system protects against data corruption in the case of the computer crashing or the power failing in a manner where the drive will cease operations without damaging the platter.

        It does not protect against disk damage.

        • Joshua Gnitecki
          September 28, 2017 at 10:44 pm

          SSD don't have that poetential issue and more importantly they last DECADES in natural life.

    • Danny Stieben
      July 30, 2012 at 1:12 am

      There is a button for that, Elijah. It's the little flag next to the Reply button.

      • Elijah Swartz
        July 30, 2012 at 2:14 am

        Ah, hidden in plain sight. It was so small, I must have missed it and mistaken it for being part of the reply button. Thanks!

        What about an edit button is that hidden somewhere? Those come in handy.

        • Danny Stieben
          August 1, 2012 at 11:30 pm

          An edit button could be handy. I wonder if I can poke James about it...

    • jesse
      July 30, 2012 at 4:19 am

      NTFS still requires defragging. None of the native Linux filesystems do.

      NTFS still looses files occasionally when it gets corrupted. And it can loose the entire filesystem if the corruption occurs at the right time.

      • pepe
        July 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm

        Not true:

        # xfs_db -r -c frag /dev/sdb1
        actual 49742, ideal 526, fragmentation factor 98.94%
        # xfs_db -r -c frag /dev/sdc1
        actual 11074, ideal 540, fragmentation factor 95.12%
        # xfs_db -r -c frag /dev/sdd1
        actual 4334, ideal 545, fragmentation factor 87.43%

        I need to do an xfs_fsr at some time!

        • old486whizz
          July 30, 2012 at 5:27 pm

          I'm sorry but XFS is not 'native' Linux (although it is supported).. It's an old IRIX filesystem which Linux decided to support.

          On the other hand, riserFS and ext3 both have defrag utilities and I would class them as "native".

        • Danny Stieben
          August 1, 2012 at 11:37 pm

          Question is, do you ever use those defrag utilities for ReiserFS and ext3/4? I know I don't...and there aren't any known graphical tools for them either.

      • Danny Stieben
        August 1, 2012 at 11:35 pm

        It's true that NTFS still requires defragging. Linux filesystems actually do too eventually, but fragmentation happens so much slower that most people don't need to bother with it.

        • Joshua Gnitecki
          September 28, 2017 at 10:46 pm

          SSDs eliminate that issue altogether!