5 ms·
I lost a btrfs-raid5-like NAS out of the blue (after 3-4 months of using it, I didn't even write a lot on it): the filesystem was always cleanly unmounted, I d
by zepearl 4y ago
I lost a btrfs-raid5-like NAS out of the blue (after 3-4 months of using it, I didn't even write a lot on it):
the filesystem was always cleanly unmounted, I didn't do any crazy experiments with it, it had plenty (>40%, hundreds of GiBs) of free disk space; on one day I noticed that accessing some files was slower than usual, the noise of the HDDs had a weird pattern and from there it went downhill (at that time there was no fsck utility so I didn't even know what to do - if I'm not mistaken, BUT I MIGHT, the general opinion was that a fsck-util was not even needed? but again, I might have just dreamed this) and finally stopped working with a huge amount of error messages in the kernel logs => I had to reformat everything (I went back to mdadm-raid5) and restore from the secondary NAS' backup.
In my opinion there were 2 main things that contributed to the bad reputation of the FS:
1)
In those days there was a looot of hype about btrfs (as well for me it was a dream come true) which is the reason why I decided to use it.
As far as I remember I didn't have to enable any special "experimental" feature in the kernel to use it => that gave me the impression that "it works under normal conditions, the DEVs are probably being a bit conservative for corner cases".
2)
All functionalities (e.g. raid5 with rebalancing in my case) were all available from day 1 (at least when I started using it) so if something's available I tend to think that it works (I mean, from a user's point of view why make something available that does not work?) - but no, apparently many people had many problems with many different configurations/usage patterns.
-
As others have written I hope that Bcachefs will primarily focus on reliability and only secondarily on performance & features, but I admit that that's difficult to balance :). And I hope that the fsck-utility will be available from day1 (at least with a reduced functionality). And I hope that "experimental" features will need some kind of very explicit command line option (e.g. "-might_break_everything") to use them through userland utils.
Go Kent!!! :) I'm since a while one of your Patreon follower - If you manage to create something usable I'll print the pic shown on LWM and I'll hang it up in my PC-room, maybe I'll even take my twitter account out of cryosleep to tell Musk that he should use Bcachefs as FS for his Teslas :))
- sph 4y agoRTFM "The RAID56 feature provides striping and parity over several devices, same as the traditional RAID5/6. There are some implementation and design deficiencies that make it unreliable for some corner cases and the feature should not be used in production, only for evaluation or testing. The power failure safety for metadata with RAID56 is not 100%." https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid56-status-and-recommended-practices https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid5... RAID56 Stability: Unstable (do not use for other then testing purposes, known severe problems, missing implementation of some core parts) https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status