4 ms·
Yikes, now you have me worried. I've recently set up btrfs on a Synology, mostly to get the advanced features like scrubbing and snapshots. But if it's too risk
by dsego 6y ago
Yikes, now you have me worried. I've recently set up btrfs on a Synology, mostly to get the advanced features like scrubbing and snapshots. But if it's too risky maybe I should've gone with ext4.
- moviuro 6y agoMeh, it's risky if you only have all your eggs in one basket. Just put multiple copies of your data everywhere, and don't think too much about it. Also, maybe Synology will manage its drives better than I did in my multiple-purpose desktop machine.
- dsego 6y agoSomeone gave me a reply on a different HN post that synology btrfs is fine, since it's using a different raid implementation? Hope I understood that right.
- saalweachter 6y agoI wonder how hard it would be to do a survey to turn anecdotes into data, rather than trying to do some sort of test to simulate corruption. Like, I've been using ZFS for about 10 years without a problem -- I had a disk in a mirrored setup go bad that I didn't notice for awhile, and when I replaced and rebuilt, I had a couple of files which had suffered corruption. But that's just my personal anecdote; I'm quite confident there are people using BTFS who can quote similar track records, and I assume there are people who have seen ZFS shit the bed for one reason or another.