3 ms·
Isn't copy-on-write supposed to be inherently resilient to crashes[1]? Why would btrfs be more susceptible to resets than traditional filesystems? [1]: https:/
by curt15 3y ago
Isn't copy-on-write supposed to be inherently resilient to crashes[1]? Why would btrfs be more susceptible to resets than traditional filesystems?
[1]: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/634050/in-what-ways-is-the-cow-filesystem-an-improvement-over-the-journaling-filesystem https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/634050/in-what-ways...
- bravetraveler 3y agoI doubt that because of the experience I just outlined In theory perhaps, but absolutely not in practice. Making things atomic is tricky.
- londons_explore 3y agoI think most of the bugs are in the drives themselves - doing things like claiming data is flushed when it is not. However, btrfs is a very fragile filesystem and any inconsistencies caused by the drive bugs tend to lead to it breaking and refusing to mount, whereas on other filesystems you'll just get a warning in dmesg. It doesn't help that btrfs developers refuse to work around drive bugs.
- phire 3y ago> It doesn't help that btrfs developers refuse to work around drive bugs. The entire selling point of the filesystem is that it's resilient to data corruption. Drive bugs are just another class of data corruption.