5 ms·

At first glance, the status page of btrfs look horrible: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status The pro

At first glance, the status page of btrfs look horrible: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status The problem areas are mostly RAID and exotic features. RAID can be handled by a different layer and most users don't really need the exotic features. Judging from the media silence in the last months I'd say either people stopped using btrfs or it just about works good enough for everbody.

feld 10y ago
when the RAID is handled by a different layer you lose some very important integrity features
- Ajedi32 10y ago
  IIRC, doesn't BTRFS also allow you to do cool things like change RAID levels dynamically? (E.g. You can be running a 2-disk RAID-1 array, pop in another disk and tell BTRFS to make it a RAID-5 array instead, then a year later pop in 2 more disks and switch to RAID6, all with no downtime.) I imagine that wouldn't be possible if you were doing RAID at a different layer.
  - teraflop 10y ago
    Linux's built-in software RAID (implemented at the block level) has supported online RAID level changes for many years. Check out the "grow mode" section of the mdadm(8) man page sometime; it goes into great detail about which operations are supported.
    - __david__ 10y ago
      Yeah, shout out to mdadm and the md driver. I've been using it for years and years and it's rock solid. Being able to grow arrays (online) and convert plain drives into mirror sets is great. I feel that md and lvm are underappreciated by a large number of Linux users…
- kazinator 10y ago
  That's why all big data in big corporations uses exotic-open-source-filesystem-based RAID. That's where the action is when it comes to integrity. None of that virtual block device or driver-level software junk, let alone hardware RAID controller solutions.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    Well, there are other reasons; you want to write code that operates on the data, and neither the code nor the data fits on a single machine - you have to target an abstraction which spans machines. Block storage is too low-level an abstraction. That isn't to say that using high performance block storage isn't still a win even when the redundancy is multiplied at a higher level. The higher level redundancy is also about colocating more data with the code - i.e. it's not just redundant for integrity, but to increase the probability it's close to the code.
    - kazinator 10y ago
      Block storage can be network-abstracted. Even virtual memory for that matter. Now ancient concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_shared_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_shared_memory
      - barrkel 10y ago
        Of course. Most production monoliths are deployed on networked block storage - aka SAN - and NUMA is already structurally distributed memory, even on a single box. But it's not the right paradigm to scale well, no more than chatty RPC that pretends the network doesn't exist is the right way to design a distributed system.
  - fulafel 10y ago
    I think the high profile ones (Google, Amazon etc) use relatively dumb OS drivers and do the fancy distributed FS abstraction stuff in userspace. Certainly stuff like Ceph and Gluster don't have very good reputations and are mostly sold to relatively clueless "enterprise" customers.
- kasabali 10y ago
  RAID 5/6 in btrfs doesn't have data integrity features so you're back to square 1 on this regard.
Mister_Snuggles 10y ago
OpenSuSE uses btrfs by default and relies on it for one of it's killer features. Before a system change, such as installing updates, changing services configuration, etc, is made using YaST, snapper takes a snapshot of the root filesystem. If something breaks, just roll back to the previous working state. I'd say that for the OpenSuSE folks, btrfs falls squarely into the "good enough" category.
- StillBored 10y ago
  I'm a big opensuse fan, but none of my opensuse machines are running btrfs.. Although, besides the stability (which can't really be much worse than ext4/xfs which is what I apparently choose on the two machines) I think what drove me nuts about opensuse's use of btrfs was all the subvolumes. Which are cool, but just another thing for me to deal with, and my computing theory for the past few years can be summarized by "KISS, unless its really hurting".
- binarycrusader 10y ago
  FWIW, Solaris has been providing similar upgrade safety via ZFS since 2008.
  - Mister_Snuggles 10y ago
    Sadly, I got out of the Solaris game a couple of years before ZFS became a thing. I'm using ZFS on FreeBSD though, I quite like it.
    - binarycrusader 10y ago
      Yes, FreeBSD adopted the same command Solaris has for boot environment management -- see the beadm man page.
  - JdeBP 10y ago
    Yes, operating systems other than OpenSUSE have this feature. TrueOS (formerly PC-BSD) has had it for some years, too. * https://blog.pcbsd.org/2012/07/9-1-feature-multiple-boot-environments/ https://blog.pcbsd.org/2012/07/9-1-feature-multiple-boot-env... * https://blog.pcbsd.org/2013/06/pc-bsd-status-update/ https://blog.pcbsd.org/2013/06/pc-bsd-status-update/ * https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/a-closer-look-at-the-changes-in-pc-bsd-trueos-9-2-part-1/ https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/a-closer-look-at-the-changes-... * https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/the-revamped-life-preserver/ https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/the-revamped-life-preserver/
KaiserPro 10y ago
If you're using large raid/jbod arrays then the chances are you're using zfs or hardware raid. I wouldn't want to be the poor sucker supporting a large BTRFS array.
user5994461 10y ago
> Judging from the media silence in the last months I'd say either people stopped using btrfs or it just about works good enough for everbody. 3rd option: there aren't really much people who ever used btrfs. from the feedback I could gather when I enquired about it, it's 33/33/33: 33% who tried and say it's fine 33% who tried, hit a few bugs and stopped 33% who say it's known for not really being finished, not a good idea to go for it.

feld 10y ago

when the RAID is handled by a different layer you lose some very important integrity features

Ajedi32 10y ago
IIRC, doesn't BTRFS also allow you to do cool things like change RAID levels dynamically? (E.g. You can be running a 2-disk RAID-1 array, pop in another disk and tell BTRFS to make it a RAID-5 array instead, then a year later pop in 2 more disks and switch to RAID6, all with no downtime.) I imagine that wouldn't be possible if you were doing RAID at a different layer.
- teraflop 10y ago
  Linux's built-in software RAID (implemented at the block level) has supported online RAID level changes for many years. Check out the "grow mode" section of the mdadm(8) man page sometime; it goes into great detail about which operations are supported.
  - __david__ 10y ago
    Yeah, shout out to mdadm and the md driver. I've been using it for years and years and it's rock solid. Being able to grow arrays (online) and convert plain drives into mirror sets is great. I feel that md and lvm are underappreciated by a large number of Linux users…
kazinator 10y ago
That's why all big data in big corporations uses exotic-open-source-filesystem-based RAID. That's where the action is when it comes to integrity. None of that virtual block device or driver-level software junk, let alone hardware RAID controller solutions.
- barrkel 10y ago
  Well, there are other reasons; you want to write code that operates on the data, and neither the code nor the data fits on a single machine - you have to target an abstraction which spans machines. Block storage is too low-level an abstraction. That isn't to say that using high performance block storage isn't still a win even when the redundancy is multiplied at a higher level. The higher level redundancy is also about colocating more data with the code - i.e. it's not just redundant for integrity, but to increase the probability it's close to the code.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    Block storage can be network-abstracted. Even virtual memory for that matter. Now ancient concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_shared_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_shared_memory
    - barrkel 10y ago
      Of course. Most production monoliths are deployed on networked block storage - aka SAN - and NUMA is already structurally distributed memory, even on a single box. But it's not the right paradigm to scale well, no more than chatty RPC that pretends the network doesn't exist is the right way to design a distributed system.
- fulafel 10y ago
  I think the high profile ones (Google, Amazon etc) use relatively dumb OS drivers and do the fancy distributed FS abstraction stuff in userspace. Certainly stuff like Ceph and Gluster don't have very good reputations and are mostly sold to relatively clueless "enterprise" customers.
kasabali 10y ago
RAID 5/6 in btrfs doesn't have data integrity features so you're back to square 1 on this regard.

Mister_Snuggles 10y ago

OpenSuSE uses btrfs by default and relies on it for one of it's killer features. Before a system change, such as installing updates, changing services configuration, etc, is made using YaST, snapper takes a snapshot of the root filesystem. If something breaks, just roll back to the previous working state. I'd say that for the OpenSuSE folks, btrfs falls squarely into the "good enough" category.

StillBored 10y ago
I'm a big opensuse fan, but none of my opensuse machines are running btrfs.. Although, besides the stability (which can't really be much worse than ext4/xfs which is what I apparently choose on the two machines) I think what drove me nuts about opensuse's use of btrfs was all the subvolumes. Which are cool, but just another thing for me to deal with, and my computing theory for the past few years can be summarized by "KISS, unless its really hurting".
binarycrusader 10y ago
FWIW, Solaris has been providing similar upgrade safety via ZFS since 2008.
- Mister_Snuggles 10y ago
  Sadly, I got out of the Solaris game a couple of years before ZFS became a thing. I'm using ZFS on FreeBSD though, I quite like it.
  - binarycrusader 10y ago
    Yes, FreeBSD adopted the same command Solaris has for boot environment management -- see the beadm man page.
- JdeBP 10y ago
  Yes, operating systems other than OpenSUSE have this feature. TrueOS (formerly PC-BSD) has had it for some years, too. * https://blog.pcbsd.org/2012/07/9-1-feature-multiple-boot-environments/ https://blog.pcbsd.org/2012/07/9-1-feature-multiple-boot-env... * https://blog.pcbsd.org/2013/06/pc-bsd-status-update/ https://blog.pcbsd.org/2013/06/pc-bsd-status-update/ * https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/a-closer-look-at-the-changes-in-pc-bsd-trueos-9-2-part-1/ https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/a-closer-look-at-the-changes-... * https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/the-revamped-life-preserver/ https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/the-revamped-life-preserver/

KaiserPro 10y ago

If you're using large raid/jbod arrays then the chances are you're using zfs or hardware raid. I wouldn't want to be the poor sucker supporting a large BTRFS array.

user5994461 10y ago

> Judging from the media silence in the last months I'd say either people stopped using btrfs or it just about works good enough for everbody. 3rd option: there aren't really much people who ever used btrfs. from the feedback I could gather when I enquired about it, it's 33/33/33: 33% who tried and say it's fine 33% who tried, hit a few bugs and stopped 33% who say it's known for not really being finished, not a good idea to go for it.