3 ms·
As a user of btrfs myself, btrfs is not a great option for single disk workstations. If you look at who is funding development, where they are using btrfs, and
by necheffa 5y ago
As a user of btrfs myself, btrfs is not a great option for single disk workstations.
If you look at who is funding development, where they are using btrfs, and the bugs and features getting deferred - its clear the direction of btrfs is not a single disk workstation but a large multi disk system in a rack somewhere.
- chasil 5y agoI'm on the current Oracle Linux 7 with the btrfs layout on the UEKR6, and I've had no problems. I know that it is possible to take a snapshot, yum update, then reboot to the snapshot subvolume to roll back the update, but this seems like a reasonable feature for a single-disk workstation. (I've never tried it, though.) Setting zstd compression per-directory also seems appropriate for single-disk workstations. I can also defrag, which a ZFS single-disk workstation absolutely cannot do.
- KozmoNau7 5y agoI've been using btrfs on both single-disk machines and disk arrays for years. It works well in both setups, the snapshots alone are invaluable. It has withstood flaky disk controllers, dying disks, and power losses, always been able to recover.
- chasil 5y agoThe btrfs filesystem is polarizing, and some have had bad experiences with it, while it has treated others well. Many argue for ext4 or xfs, but so many features are absent from these legacy filesystems. The only place that people appear uniformly happy is FreeBSD.