3 ms·

Btrfs is the only FS I used that resulted in complete FS corruption losing nearly all data on disk, not once, but 3 times. After that, none of the features lik

Btrfs is the only FS I used that resulted in complete FS corruption losing nearly all data on disk, not once, but 3 times. After that, none of the features like compression, snapshots, COW or checksums meant anything to me. I'm much happier with ext4 and xfs on lvm.

danieldk 7y ago
In the 26 years or so I have used Linux, I have had corrupted filesystems with reiserfs, XFS, btrfs, and ext[23]. In the case of reiserfs and XFS it was practically impossible to recover the filesystem (IIRC reiserfs would reattach anything that resembled a B-tree). For ext[23], it was surprisingly easy to get back most of the data. Never had any corruption with ZFS or ext4. I didn't try to fix the btrfs filesystem, since it was a machine that had to be repurposed anyway.
- mekster 7y ago
  When was it that XFS got corrupted on you? I think as RedHat embraces XFS, I assume it's quite good now.
  - danieldk 7y ago
    Somewhere between being merged in mainline and 2009.
- starfallg 7y ago
  My experience with recovering btrfs is that you get back most of your files, but with the content replaced with random gibberish. Which is not too useful. In a way, I would rather it bomb out and declare a total loss than to keep sinking more time into it as it leads you along.
rbanffy 7y ago
Anecdote, I know, but I have about a dozen machines with BtrFS volumes, all active with varying loads and never experienced data loss. It seems some features are more mature than others - only two of the volumes span more than one disk and none has files that are larger than a physical volume (even though one of the multi-device volumes is striped).
mekster 7y ago
Funny the other day on another HN thread, someone was saying btrfs is good even though I said RedHat has abandoned the btrfs ship but then he said Facebook had been using it heavily. But seeing how so many people had lost data using it, I will never use btrfs...

danieldk 7y ago

In the 26 years or so I have used Linux, I have had corrupted filesystems with reiserfs, XFS, btrfs, and ext[23]. In the case of reiserfs and XFS it was practically impossible to recover the filesystem (IIRC reiserfs would reattach anything that resembled a B-tree). For ext[23], it was surprisingly easy to get back most of the data. Never had any corruption with ZFS or ext4. I didn't try to fix the btrfs filesystem, since it was a machine that had to be repurposed anyway.

mekster 7y ago
When was it that XFS got corrupted on you? I think as RedHat embraces XFS, I assume it's quite good now.
- danieldk 7y ago
  Somewhere between being merged in mainline and 2009.
starfallg 7y ago
My experience with recovering btrfs is that you get back most of your files, but with the content replaced with random gibberish. Which is not too useful. In a way, I would rather it bomb out and declare a total loss than to keep sinking more time into it as it leads you along.

rbanffy 7y ago

Anecdote, I know, but I have about a dozen machines with BtrFS volumes, all active with varying loads and never experienced data loss. It seems some features are more mature than others - only two of the volumes span more than one disk and none has files that are larger than a physical volume (even though one of the multi-device volumes is striped).

mekster 7y ago

Funny the other day on another HN thread, someone was saying btrfs is good even though I said RedHat has abandoned the btrfs ship but then he said Facebook had been using it heavily. But seeing how so many people had lost data using it, I will never use btrfs...