3 ms·
> Nothing changes for the user when they switch to it. You must perform regular maintenance on btrfs or it will quite simply break. This is a huge departure fr
by krageon 5y ago
> Nothing changes for the user when they switch to it.
You must perform regular maintenance on btrfs or it will quite simply break. This is a huge departure from for example ext4, which is (to the end user at least) hassle free.
- byhemechi 5y agothis is not my experience, btrfs has been just as stable as ext4 and zfs for me. maybe i've just been lucky?
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoExt4 is transparent for me, but I can confirm BTRFS to have failed me several times. n = 1 of course.
- pizza234 5y agoI'm not sure about the "maintenance" part, however, my experience was: - a few years ago, one system would suddently not boot (due to btrfs); this happened twice - nowadays, on one system, background scrub doesn't start This is anecdata of course, but I've never had a good impression overall. I don't see any reason to use btrfs rather than ZFS, considering that Ubuntu and derivatives are starting to add builtin support.
- krageon 5y agoIt is a technical certainty AFAICT. If this has not impacted you, it will some day :) Scripts for actually doing so can be found f.e. here: https://github.com/kdave/btrfsmaintenance https://github.com/kdave/btrfsmaintenance