2 ms·

> it proved its unreliability too many times over the years, and working on it feels like throwing good money after bad. Btrfs has been working fine for years

by brmgb 6y ago

> it proved its unreliability too many times over the years, and working on it feels like throwing good money after bad. Btrfs has been working fine for years and is used largely at Facebook. RAID 5 and RAID 6 are still unstable (and marked as such) but the rest just works.

protomyth 6y ago
> Btrfs has been working fine for years and is used largely at Facebook. RAID 5 and RAID 6 are still unstable (and marked as such) but the rest just works. I get the feeling that if you are a ZFS user then RAID 5 & 6 not working is just a deal breaker.
- brmgb 6y ago
  Not having RAID 5 and 6 is not ideal, yes. Then again, I will hasard than most potential users, including home NAS users, have at most two HDD. Btrfs also has some advantages for personal use when you compare it to ZFS: it supports combining disks of different sizes and is easier to grow.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    home NAS users, have at most two HDD. I think that's wrong. A lot of 4 drive models are in stores end users shop.
    - brmgb 6y ago
      > [most potential users, including] home NAS users, have at most two HDD. Let's not truncate this sentence to avoid altering its meaning. I certainly don't deny four drives NAS exist but I think dual bays are still a lot more common. Anecdotally I know a lot of people with one drive NAS (some ISP provide them here), a few people with two drives NAS (including me) and no one with four drives (but I don't know anyone heavily into photography or video which seem to be the main usage). My point was that you can still address a large segment of the home users market without RAID 5 and RAID 6.
rleigh 6y ago
It doesn't "just work". There are multiple significant design defects which result in absolutely atrocious performance in many common scenarios, or even stop the file system from working. These haven't been addressed. The RAID5/6 issues are significant, but don't pretend that Btrfs would be OK if these problems were resolved. There are still many others waiting to be fixed as well.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  Please list their supposed "multiple significant design defects which result in absolutely atrocious performance in many common scenarios", and explain why you think they are not inherent to CoW filesystems in general.

by brmgb 6y ago

protomyth 6y ago

> Btrfs has been working fine for years and is used largely at Facebook. RAID 5 and RAID 6 are still unstable (and marked as such) but the rest just works. I get the feeling that if you are a ZFS user then RAID 5 & 6 not working is just a deal breaker.

brmgb 6y ago
Not having RAID 5 and 6 is not ideal, yes. Then again, I will hasard than most potential users, including home NAS users, have at most two HDD. Btrfs also has some advantages for personal use when you compare it to ZFS: it supports combining disks of different sizes and is easier to grow.
- protomyth 6y ago
  home NAS users, have at most two HDD. I think that's wrong. A lot of 4 drive models are in stores end users shop.
  - brmgb 6y ago
    > [most potential users, including] home NAS users, have at most two HDD. Let's not truncate this sentence to avoid altering its meaning. I certainly don't deny four drives NAS exist but I think dual bays are still a lot more common. Anecdotally I know a lot of people with one drive NAS (some ISP provide them here), a few people with two drives NAS (including me) and no one with four drives (but I don't know anyone heavily into photography or video which seem to be the main usage). My point was that you can still address a large segment of the home users market without RAID 5 and RAID 6.

rleigh 6y ago

It doesn't "just work". There are multiple significant design defects which result in absolutely atrocious performance in many common scenarios, or even stop the file system from working. These haven't been addressed. The RAID5/6 issues are significant, but don't pretend that Btrfs would be OK if these problems were resolved. There are still many others waiting to be fixed as well.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
Please list their supposed "multiple significant design defects which result in absolutely atrocious performance in many common scenarios", and explain why you think they are not inherent to CoW filesystems in general.