5 ms·

Btrfs is still unacceptably less reliable than ZFS, after _decades_ of development. This is unacceptable, IMHO. I've lost so much data due to btrfs corruption i

Btrfs is still unacceptably less reliable than ZFS, after _decades_ of development. This is unacceptable, IMHO. I've lost so much data due to btrfs corruption issues that I've (almost) stopped to use it completely nowadays. It's better to fight to keep the damned OpenZFS modules up to date and get an actual _reliable_ system instead of accepting the risk again.

BSDobelix 2y ago
>It's better to fight to keep the damned OpenZFS modules up to date and get an actual _reliable_ system Try CachyOS (or at least the ZFS-Kernel) it has excellent ZFS integration.
- Volundr 2y ago
  This. I may still give up on running ZFS on Linux due to the common (seemingly intentional from the Linux side) breakage, but for my existing systems switching them over to CachyOS repos has been a blessed relief.
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    Well i use mainly FreeBSD but have used CachyOS for about 3mo to have some systemd refresher :)
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  Hadn't heard of CachyOS before, looks very nice! Was looking to move to Arch from KDE Neon, but this might be a much better fit.
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    Well or don't move from arch and just use the cachyos repos: https://wiki.cachyos.org/de/cachyos_repositories/how_to_add_cachyos_repo/ https://wiki.cachyos.org/de/cachyos_repositories/how_to_add_... No reinstall needed ;)
    - magicalhippo 2y ago
      Fair point. Currently running KDE Neon though, which is Debian based so reinstall needed...
tuetuopay 2y ago
Funny because I have the opposite experience. The main issue with btrfs is a lack of tooling for the layperson to not require btrfs-developer level knowledge to fix issues. I've personally had drive failures, fs corruptions due to power loss (which is supposed not to happen on a cow filesystem), fs and file corruption due to ram bitflips, etc. All the times btrfs handled the situation perfectly, with the caveat that I needed the help from the btrfs developers. And they were very helpful! So yeah, btrfs has a bad rep, but it is not as bad as the common feeling makes it look like. (note that I still run btrfs raid 1, as I did not find real return of experience regarding raid 5 or 6)
- cpuguy83 2y ago
  fs corruption due to power loss happens on ext4 because the default settings only journal metadata for performance. I guess if everything is on batteries all the time this is fine, intolerable on systems without battery.
  - immibis 2y ago
    The FS should not be corrupted, only the contents of files that were written around the time of the power loss. Risking only file contents and not the FS itself is a tradeoff between performance and safety where you only get half of each. You can set it to full performance or full safety mode if you prefer.
    - cpuguy83 2y ago
      True this is file corruption.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  It's funny because Facebook uses btrfs for their systems & doesn't have these issues. ZFS lovers need to stop this CoW against CoW violence.
  - SirGiggles 2y ago
sgbeal 2y ago
> I've lost so much data due to btrfs corruption issues that I've (almost) stopped to use it completely nowadays. Just out of curiosity: is there a specific reason you're not using plain-vanilla filesystems which _are_ stable? Personal anecdote: i've only ever had serious corruption twice, 20-ish years ago, once with XFS and once with ReiserFS, and have primarily used the extN family of filesystems for most of the past 30 years. A filesystem only has to go corrupt on me once before i stop using it. Edit to add a caveat: though i find the ideas behind ZFS, btrfs, etc., fascinating, i have no personal need for them so have never used them on personal systems (but did use ZFS on corporate Solaris systems many years ago). ext4 has always served me well, and comes with none of the caveats i regularly read about for any of the more advanced filesystems. Similarly, i've never needed an LVM or any such complexity. As the age-old wisdom goes, "complexity is your enemy," and keeping to simple filesystem setups has always served my personal systems/LAN well. i've also never once seen someone recover from filesystem corruption in a RAID environment by simply swapping out a disk (there's always been much more work involved), so i've never bought into the "RAID is the solution" camp.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  > is there a specific reason you're not using plain-vanilla filesystems which _are_ stable? my personal reasons are raid + compression
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Just out of curiosity: is there a specific reason you're not using plain-vanilla filesystems which _are_ stable? I'd guess that it is the classic case of figuring out if something works without using it being a lot harder than giving it a go and seeing what happens. I've accidentally taken out my own home folder in the past with ill-advised setups and it is an educational experience. I wouldn't recommend it professionally, but I can see the joy in using something unusual on a personal system. Keep backups of anything you really can't afford to lose. And one bad experience isn't enough to get a feel for how reliable something is. It is better to stick with it even if it fails once or twice.
  - sgbeal 2y ago

BSDobelix 2y ago

>It's better to fight to keep the damned OpenZFS modules up to date and get an actual _reliable_ system Try CachyOS (or at least the ZFS-Kernel) it has excellent ZFS integration.

Volundr 2y ago
This. I may still give up on running ZFS on Linux due to the common (seemingly intentional from the Linux side) breakage, but for my existing systems switching them over to CachyOS repos has been a blessed relief.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  Well i use mainly FreeBSD but have used CachyOS for about 3mo to have some systemd refresher :)
magicalhippo 2y ago
Hadn't heard of CachyOS before, looks very nice! Was looking to move to Arch from KDE Neon, but this might be a much better fit.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  Well or don't move from arch and just use the cachyos repos: https://wiki.cachyos.org/de/cachyos_repositories/how_to_add_cachyos_repo/ https://wiki.cachyos.org/de/cachyos_repositories/how_to_add_... No reinstall needed ;)
  - magicalhippo 2y ago
    Fair point. Currently running KDE Neon though, which is Debian based so reinstall needed...

tuetuopay 2y ago

Funny because I have the opposite experience. The main issue with btrfs is a lack of tooling for the layperson to not require btrfs-developer level knowledge to fix issues. I've personally had drive failures, fs corruptions due to power loss (which is supposed not to happen on a cow filesystem), fs and file corruption due to ram bitflips, etc. All the times btrfs handled the situation perfectly, with the caveat that I needed the help from the btrfs developers. And they were very helpful! So yeah, btrfs has a bad rep, but it is not as bad as the common feeling makes it look like. (note that I still run btrfs raid 1, as I did not find real return of experience regarding raid 5 or 6)

cpuguy83 2y ago
fs corruption due to power loss happens on ext4 because the default settings only journal metadata for performance. I guess if everything is on batteries all the time this is fine, intolerable on systems without battery.
- immibis 2y ago
  The FS should not be corrupted, only the contents of files that were written around the time of the power loss. Risking only file contents and not the FS itself is a tradeoff between performance and safety where you only get half of each. You can set it to full performance or full safety mode if you prefer.
  - cpuguy83 2y ago
    True this is file corruption.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
It's funny because Facebook uses btrfs for their systems & doesn't have these issues. ZFS lovers need to stop this CoW against CoW violence.
- SirGiggles 2y ago

sgbeal 2y ago

> I've lost so much data due to btrfs corruption issues that I've (almost) stopped to use it completely nowadays. Just out of curiosity: is there a specific reason you're not using plain-vanilla filesystems which _are_ stable? Personal anecdote: i've only ever had serious corruption twice, 20-ish years ago, once with XFS and once with ReiserFS, and have primarily used the extN family of filesystems for most of the past 30 years. A filesystem only has to go corrupt on me once before i stop using it. Edit to add a caveat: though i find the ideas behind ZFS, btrfs, etc., fascinating, i have no personal need for them so have never used them on personal systems (but did use ZFS on corporate Solaris systems many years ago). ext4 has always served me well, and comes with none of the caveats i regularly read about for any of the more advanced filesystems. Similarly, i've never needed an LVM or any such complexity. As the age-old wisdom goes, "complexity is your enemy," and keeping to simple filesystem setups has always served my personal systems/LAN well. i've also never once seen someone recover from filesystem corruption in a RAID environment by simply swapping out a disk (there's always been much more work involved), so i've never bought into the "RAID is the solution" camp.

riku_iki 2y ago
> is there a specific reason you're not using plain-vanilla filesystems which _are_ stable? my personal reasons are raid + compression
roenxi 2y ago
> Just out of curiosity: is there a specific reason you're not using plain-vanilla filesystems which _are_ stable? I'd guess that it is the classic case of figuring out if something works without using it being a lot harder than giving it a go and seeing what happens. I've accidentally taken out my own home folder in the past with ill-advised setups and it is an educational experience. I wouldn't recommend it professionally, but I can see the joy in using something unusual on a personal system. Keep backups of anything you really can't afford to lose. And one bad experience isn't enough to get a feel for how reliable something is. It is better to stick with it even if it fails once or twice.
- sgbeal 2y ago