4 ms·

Btrfs is in large-scale production use by a number of companies, including Facebook, who are active contributors. ZFS will never be part of the Linux kernel du

by lima 6y ago

Btrfs is in large-scale production use by a number of companies, including Facebook, who are active contributors. ZFS will never be part of the Linux kernel due to both licensing issues and it including its own crypto, cache and other subsystems. Personally I have high hopes for bcachefs, but Btrfs is here to stay.

viraptor 6y ago
Just a note for other people excited about bcachefs, you can potentially speed things up by joining Kent's patreon https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs
danudey 6y ago
> Btrfs is here to stay btrfs was removed from RHEL because RedHat themselves don't have the time or energy to support it or support systems using it. That's going to hurt adoption. Ubuntu is working actively towards ZFS as an available/default option, and once it is there's not much point in using btrfs unless you have specific use cases. Everyone else I know either uses ZFS or XFS in production. For my systems, I would definitely not trust btrfs with critical data. Here's the thing: btrfs is 'fine', but it's not 'good'. It's the only filesystem since 2001 where I've suffered unrecoverable filesystem corruption as a result of a power outage (on a fresh 18.04 installation last November) and had to salvage data and reinstall. The tooling, in a lot of cases, does the opposite of ZFS and touts it as a feature. For example, snapshots are not recursive and they say that this is great for if you want to snapshot / but not /home; this is true, but it also means that I cannot subdivide datasets. For example, on ZFS I divide up /var/lib/mysql/ into /var/lib/mysql/tablespace/ and var/lib/mysql/logdb, for example, since both of those have different access patterns and block sizes (16k and 128k respectively). ZFS lets me do this to optimize reads and writes, but I can also atomically snapshot them both. btrfs doesn't let me do an atomic, recursive snapshot at all (and I'm not sure if it can handle different block sizes per subvolume either). Basically, ZFS is a better, production-ready, enterprise-proven, and surprisingly intuitive filesystem and volume management system, and has been for 14 years. btrfs has weird tooling, incomplete features (which they don't just remove from the roadmap for some reason), data loss issues, and the only large-scale use I've heard of it Facebook, who also work on it (easier to use btrfs when you've hired all the experts). With Ubuntu shipping ZFS enabled by default, most reasons to use btrfs go away; it's not mainlined in the kernel, but that doesn't matter if your distribution has it enabled and supported by default.

by lima 6y ago

viraptor 6y ago

Just a note for other people excited about bcachefs, you can potentially speed things up by joining Kent's patreon https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs

danudey 6y ago

> Btrfs is here to stay btrfs was removed from RHEL because RedHat themselves don't have the time or energy to support it or support systems using it. That's going to hurt adoption. Ubuntu is working actively towards ZFS as an available/default option, and once it is there's not much point in using btrfs unless you have specific use cases. Everyone else I know either uses ZFS or XFS in production. For my systems, I would definitely not trust btrfs with critical data. Here's the thing: btrfs is 'fine', but it's not 'good'. It's the only filesystem since 2001 where I've suffered unrecoverable filesystem corruption as a result of a power outage (on a fresh 18.04 installation last November) and had to salvage data and reinstall. The tooling, in a lot of cases, does the opposite of ZFS and touts it as a feature. For example, snapshots are not recursive and they say that this is great for if you want to snapshot / but not /home; this is true, but it also means that I cannot subdivide datasets. For example, on ZFS I divide up /var/lib/mysql/ into /var/lib/mysql/tablespace/ and var/lib/mysql/logdb, for example, since both of those have different access patterns and block sizes (16k and 128k respectively). ZFS lets me do this to optimize reads and writes, but I can also atomically snapshot them both. btrfs doesn't let me do an atomic, recursive snapshot at all (and I'm not sure if it can handle different block sizes per subvolume either). Basically, ZFS is a better, production-ready, enterprise-proven, and surprisingly intuitive filesystem and volume management system, and has been for 14 years. btrfs has weird tooling, incomplete features (which they don't just remove from the roadmap for some reason), data loss issues, and the only large-scale use I've heard of it Facebook, who also work on it (easier to use btrfs when you've hired all the experts). With Ubuntu shipping ZFS enabled by default, most reasons to use btrfs go away; it's not mainlined in the kernel, but that doesn't matter if your distribution has it enabled and supported by default.