3 ms·
I'm sorry, as I keep hearing these criticisms around BTRFS, I still don't know why. What is so messy about it? Honest question
by spookie 3y ago
I'm sorry, as I keep hearing these criticisms around BTRFS, I still don't know why.
What is so messy about it?
Honest question
- janneke 3y agoHave you tried reading the code? It's twice as large (107KLOC) as ext4 (45KLOC), where ext4 is viewed as a natural evolution of ext2 (7KLOC). 45KLOC of C code already sounds really scary to me, although yeah, journaling is really nice to have.
- spookie 3y agoYes, that's scary. Understandable, but it does come with a lot of functionality that's nice to have no?
- effie 3y agoIt's "perpetually half-finished". Convoluted admin cli tooling, bad track record with reliability and loss of data, lots of stories on the internet. It perhaps got better, but RAID5/RAID6 for metadata (standard use of disks) still not oficially recommended and thus standard RAID5/RAID6 is not reliable. Also, look at some FS benchmarks - BTRFS is still much slower than EXT/XFS, and slower than ZFS. About the only class of scenarios to use BTRFS instead of ZFS is if you want the features, do not need RAID5/6, require support by Linux distributor/kernel developers or for some other (hard to think of) reason you can't use ZFS. I do use BTRFS on a single disk where I don't touch it with cli tools, and there it's fine.