3 ms·

Yes I have tried to use btrfs several times for work projects and personally because I was very excited about it but every time I have ran into severe bugs even

Yes I have tried to use btrfs several times for work projects and personally because I was very excited about it but every time I have ran into severe bugs even though it was said to be "stable". I have given up for now, maybe I will check back in a couple more years.

djsumdog 10y ago
The last time I was using btrfs was around 2014, and I was wondering why my hard drive was always showing 100% utilization even after I moved/deleted a ton-o-stuff. Turns out at the time, re-balancing still had to be run manually. I'm not sure if that still holds true.
- delroth 10y ago
  It is still a problem, I just had one of my personal servers hit issues where I couldn't even manually re-balance because the metadata was full. Had to apply weird workarounds to be able to write to that filesystem again...
Dylan16807 10y ago
I really like btrfs for my backup machine, but it sometimes manages to hang when it's cleaning up deleted snapshots. This is a problem that's much worse when on a hard drive or fragmented file system, but I've gotten it to happen even on a recently-balanced drive with a small amount of snapshots. I recently had a server be crippled by running snapper on default settings for a few months. And after a couple days of balancing (which desperately needs a throttle control) it wasn't much better, so I gave up on having it run btrfs. I think the record I managed was slightly over two minutes of btrfs blocking all disk I/O. Something is deeply wrong with how it organizes transactions.
dom0 10y ago
Funny, my btrfs story is somewhat similar. I don't hit severe bugs, though, just severe performance issues. E.g. btrfs on / always sooner or later means for me that the entire IO to the disk that's on will be _thrashed_ during system updates or package installs / uninstalls.

3 ms·

Yes I have tried to use btrfs several times for work projects and personally because I was very excited about it but every time I have ran into severe bugs even

by seiferteric 10y ago

djsumdog 10y ago
The last time I was using btrfs was around 2014, and I was wondering why my hard drive was always showing 100% utilization even after I moved/deleted a ton-o-stuff. Turns out at the time, re-balancing still had to be run manually. I'm not sure if that still holds true.
- delroth 10y ago
  It is still a problem, I just had one of my personal servers hit issues where I couldn't even manually re-balance because the metadata was full. Had to apply weird workarounds to be able to write to that filesystem again...
Dylan16807 10y ago
I really like btrfs for my backup machine, but it sometimes manages to hang when it's cleaning up deleted snapshots. This is a problem that's much worse when on a hard drive or fragmented file system, but I've gotten it to happen even on a recently-balanced drive with a small amount of snapshots. I recently had a server be crippled by running snapper on default settings for a few months. And after a couple days of balancing (which desperately needs a throttle control) it wasn't much better, so I gave up on having it run btrfs. I think the record I managed was slightly over two minutes of btrfs blocking all disk I/O. Something is deeply wrong with how it organizes transactions.
dom0 10y ago
Funny, my btrfs story is somewhat similar. I don't hit severe bugs, though, just severe performance issues. E.g. btrfs on / always sooner or later means for me that the entire IO to the disk that's on will be _thrashed_ during system updates or package installs / uninstalls.