3 ms·

> BTRFS arrays will consistently corrupt with my reset button I know you don't want to get asked this, and I wouldn't if you'd just said "I tried this once a w

by yrro 3y ago

> BTRFS arrays will consistently corrupt with my reset button I know you don't want to get asked this, and I wouldn't if you'd just said "I tried this once a while ago and it happened", but if it's consistent... have you filed a bug?

bravetraveler 3y ago
It's a fair ask! I don't mind. It's occurred to me, but I expect a fair bit of push back; 'you abuse the array and expect it to... what?' I'm not really interested in debating that, and it's remarkably easy to get hung up on. I've floated this issue a few times unofficially and it's a constant stickler I know expecting coherency in this situation is a little silly, but BTRFS is notably less reliable/robust than the alternatives All in all... I'm avoiding a situation that may or may not occur, by not participating. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's easier for me to just use What Works
- yrro 3y ago
  With properly functioning hardware (i.e., that doesn't lie to you when it says "that has been committed to durable storage") then metadata or data corruption following power loss is definitely a bug! It didn't even occur to me that you might get a different response. I'd be kind of annoyed if I went to the trouble of reporting a bug and got that response. But I'd also not assume it would end that way...
  - bravetraveler 3y ago
    With where we're at with SSDs chasing the performance dragon... I suspect some deception is at play! The DRAM caches are pretty hefty compared to metadata, so I wouldn't be surprised - though that's about my extent of understanding. Even then, though - other filesystems are certainly more durable, dealing with whatever these drives are doing. FWIW, this was with four Sabrent Rocket 4.0 Plus drives in RAID10 with 4K sectors. I'm not sure if these are particularly well known one way or another for deception/trickery They hold up just fine with either dm-raid or native LVM raid10 under more traditional filesystems (I tested EXT4/XFS, using the latter consistently)

by yrro 3y ago

bravetraveler 3y ago

It's a fair ask! I don't mind. It's occurred to me, but I expect a fair bit of push back; 'you abuse the array and expect it to... what?' I'm not really interested in debating that, and it's remarkably easy to get hung up on. I've floated this issue a few times unofficially and it's a constant stickler I know expecting coherency in this situation is a little silly, but BTRFS is notably less reliable/robust than the alternatives All in all... I'm avoiding a situation that may or may not occur, by not participating. Not saying it's a good thing, but it's easier for me to just use What Works

yrro 3y ago
With properly functioning hardware (i.e., that doesn't lie to you when it says "that has been committed to durable storage") then metadata or data corruption following power loss is definitely a bug! It didn't even occur to me that you might get a different response. I'd be kind of annoyed if I went to the trouble of reporting a bug and got that response. But I'd also not assume it would end that way...
- bravetraveler 3y ago
  With where we're at with SSDs chasing the performance dragon... I suspect some deception is at play! The DRAM caches are pretty hefty compared to metadata, so I wouldn't be surprised - though that's about my extent of understanding. Even then, though - other filesystems are certainly more durable, dealing with whatever these drives are doing. FWIW, this was with four Sabrent Rocket 4.0 Plus drives in RAID10 with 4K sectors. I'm not sure if these are particularly well known one way or another for deception/trickery They hold up just fine with either dm-raid or native LVM raid10 under more traditional filesystems (I tested EXT4/XFS, using the latter consistently)