3 ms·

> Btrfs raid 1/10 is rock solid and offers similar robustness to ZFS, ie >= hardware raid. There seem to be some foot guns present. See Jim Salter's article, s

> Btrfs raid 1/10 is rock solid and offers similar robustness to ZFS, ie >= hardware raid. There seem to be some foot guns present. See Jim Salter's article, specifically the section "Btrfs RAID array management is a mess": * https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu... Btrfs was lunched in 2009, and there is still so much meh about it. I've been using ZFS since Solaris 10 (2006) and all the features have done exactly what they say on the tin.

kiririn 5y ago
The degraded mounting is a valid concern. Rebooting while in a degraded state is problematic (from a ‘might lose ssh access’ standpoint, not data loss) The other concern seems to be the auto mounting of stale disks, which is by design and works a treat In my experience a much bigger footgun is that btrfs raid makes files with CoW disabled completely unsafe (no sync between disks even when scrubbed), and some distros and programs (systemd-journald) selectively disable CoW by default