3 ms·
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 ke
by 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 agoAnd 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