3 ms·
Honestly... I don't trust btrfs at the moment. It has had some nasty data losing bugs in it in the past, and admittedly its been a while since I heard of one,
by Twirrim 10y ago
Honestly... I don't trust btrfs at the moment. It has had some nasty data losing bugs in it in the past, and admittedly its been a while since I heard of one, but it's also not often that you'll hear of someone actually using it in production. Even their wiki page is woefully lacking in examples with which to sell it: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users.
I want to like it, we really need a nice, stable next-generation file system in Linux land (that doesn't have the licensing issues associated with ZFS)
- mjevans 10y agoI do like it. However I am very wary of using the advanced features (beyond the de-fragmentation/scrubbing/balance kind) without a /good/ backup of the data on the system and a good retention policy. It has been my experience with using BTRFS for my own personal data that it's the less tested code paths which had / might have the issues you're describing. Things like sparse files (I got bit by this bug), snapshots (regular scrubbing and backups are things you're doing already right), and other features that are less frequently used. A small production cluster where I work uses XFS over BTRFS though, because of the very FUD that's mentioned and the type of storage happening on it matching the sparse pattern (even though that bug should be fixed).
- colejohnson66 10y agoIIRC, Linus Media Group uses btrfs for a few of their servers. But, as shown by some of their videos, they aren't the best when it comes to good practice...