3 ms·
>BTRFS is frequently not considered stable enough for production usage. I'm not sure this is still true, especially after Facebook deployed it on millions of s
by SkyMarshal 5y ago
>BTRFS is frequently not considered stable enough for production usage.
I'm not sure this is still true, especially after Facebook deployed it on millions of servers.
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users
- bashinator 5y agoSo what you’re saying is, btrfs works if you can afford an ops/sre team on par with Facebook’s?
- chousuke 5y agoDo they really care if any one of those servers loses its data though? At that scale, you need higher level redundancy so it makes sense to prioritize filesystems for other features than how well they actually retain your data. For example, detecting corruption would be more important than never having any, so that you can get IO errors and immediately kill the server before it serves bad data.
- maccam94 5y agoSpecifically BTRFS's RAID5/RAID6 implementation is unstable and susceptible to data loss. Facebook doesn't use those RAID levels in production. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-Warning-RAID5-RAID6 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-Wa... https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas#Parity_RAID https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas#Parity_RAID