3 ms·
> Why is ZFS requiring scrubs and understanding the limitations of it's RAID implementations okay, but btrfs requiring scrubs and understanding the limitations
by chungy 5y ago
> Why is ZFS requiring scrubs and understanding the limitations of it's RAID implementations okay, but btrfs requiring scrubs and understanding the limitations of its RAID implementations "hidden gotchas"?
It read more like btrfs corrupting data despite good scrubbing practice; hosing the file system on the good drive instead of letting it remain good, for instance. If that's a misreading, that is where my position came from.
Regular scrubs and understanding the limitations of redundancy models is good on both systems, yes.
My own anecdotal evidence though: btrfs really does snag itself into surprising and disastrous situations at alarming frequency. Between being unable to reshape a pool (eg, removing a disk when plenty of free space exists) and not being safe with unclean shutdowns, it's hard to ever trust it. It even went a few good years where it seemed to be abandoned, but I guess since 2018 or so it's been picked up again.
- stryan 5y agoAh, I understand what you're saying now. Yeah, that's fair assuming it was btrfs's fault for the data loss. >Between being unable to reshape a pool (eg, removing a disk when plenty of free space exists) and not being safe with unclean shutdowns, it's hard to ever trust it. It even went a few good years where it seemed to be abandoned, but I guess since 2018 or so it's been picked up again. FYI, btrfs does support reshaping pool with the btrfs device commands.
- chungy 5y ago> FYI, btrfs does support reshaping pool with the btrfs device commands. I've found it trivially easy to get btrfs stuck in a state where the commands to do so refuse to function.