4 ms·

> Also the "next gen FS" is just ZFS, first released in 2005 (and they say software moves fast) And yet, ZFS still seems to be the only filesystem in the world

by patrec 7y ago

> Also the "next gen FS" is just ZFS, first released in 2005 (and they say software moves fast) And yet, ZFS still seems to be the only filesystem in the world that looks remotely appealing. Or can you name a single newer filesystem that has a reasonable subset of the features and does not actually corrupt your data (let alone run on more than one OS)? The main competitors seem BTRFS (linux only) and APFS (apple only), and the former despite being around a decade still had plenty of data corruption reports till fairly recently (and is being removed from RHEL) whilst APFS doesn't even bother to checksum your data.

LukeShu 7y ago
5 years ago, I would have agreed with you about BtrFS. Since 2012 or 2013, I'd been using BtrFS essentially as a cache on a build server; ephemeral data was kept there, if it was lost, it just meant that later operation would be slow. And I did see corruption, every few months I'd end up having to reformatting it. And then at some point I realized that I hadn't had to reformat it in a long time. And so when I got a new laptop in 2016 I felt comfortable formatting the whole thing (including / and /home) with BtrFS. And then I was building another server in September 2018, which would store a bunch of data (currently about 4TB), and went with BtrFS. And then a work laptop later in 2018. So using BtrFS on a variety of systems (all using close to the latest kernels the whole time), I haven't seen any data corruption since at least 2016. I'm sad that RH decided to no longer invest in it.
- laumars 7y ago
  > I haven't seen any data corruption since at least 2016 While I appreciate reading a counterargument, that's still only 3 years and personal "anecdata" at that. So it still falls within the "fairly recently" disclaimer the GP used (3 years is fairly recent in file system terms).
  - patrec 7y ago
    And I've seen reports of significant data corruption that are much more recent than 3 years ago. Also: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg81293.html https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg81293.html

by patrec 7y ago

LukeShu 7y ago

5 years ago, I would have agreed with you about BtrFS. Since 2012 or 2013, I'd been using BtrFS essentially as a cache on a build server; ephemeral data was kept there, if it was lost, it just meant that later operation would be slow. And I did see corruption, every few months I'd end up having to reformatting it. And then at some point I realized that I hadn't had to reformat it in a long time. And so when I got a new laptop in 2016 I felt comfortable formatting the whole thing (including / and /home) with BtrFS. And then I was building another server in September 2018, which would store a bunch of data (currently about 4TB), and went with BtrFS. And then a work laptop later in 2018. So using BtrFS on a variety of systems (all using close to the latest kernels the whole time), I haven't seen any data corruption since at least 2016. I'm sad that RH decided to no longer invest in it.

laumars 7y ago
> I haven't seen any data corruption since at least 2016 While I appreciate reading a counterargument, that's still only 3 years and personal "anecdata" at that. So it still falls within the "fairly recently" disclaimer the GP used (3 years is fairly recent in file system terms).
- patrec 7y ago
  And I've seen reports of significant data corruption that are much more recent than 3 years ago. Also: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg81293.html https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg81293.html