3 ms·
> btrfs, which I do use nowadays but I'm absolutely aware of the high risk of data corruption because the underlying code is terrible. Is the underlying code t
by eeperson 8y ago
> btrfs, which I do use nowadays but I'm absolutely aware of the high risk of data corruption because the underlying code is terrible.
Is the underlying code terrible? I haven't heard any particular concerns about code quality (aside from the original implementation of RAID 5/6). Most of the issues I've heard about were due to people using features that weren't ready yet. I've heard a lot fewer of these issue since BTRFS started providing clear statuses for individual features[1]. Do you have a different impression?
[1] - https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status
- zanny 8y agoI've used btrfs as my main fs (with ample backups) since 2012. Plenty of file system corruption and backup restores in the intervening years, but I went from having it happen 4x a year in 2012-2013 to once a year by 2015 and never since 2016. Its totally anecdotal to say just because my ~10 hard drives with it being stable for two years means its improved but I'd consider putting some faith in it now. A bit. With backups.