3 ms·

It’ll replace brtfs if it gets ported. Almost anything is better than that pile of garbage.

LargoLasskhyfv 10d ago
Running it for more than two years now, without any hassles. On single SSDs though. But still, waddya even talkin about?
- cestith 10d ago
  When I last took a serious look at btrfs its RAID 5 and RAID 6 modes could lose a whole lot of data if a single drive crashed or if the system lost power during a write. That's not supposed to happen on a RAID system with a journal. From what I understand single copy setups, RAID 1, and RAID 10 never had the same problem. It's left a bad taste for a lot of people though. Very early ext4 versions also had some data loss or data corruption, but I never hear people dismiss it completely for that brief spot of its history. Maybe part of that is because it was around 17 years ago and it's been a reliable default OS for many years now.
  - scheme271 10d ago
    The recommendation is still to store metadata on a raid 1 or 1/0 partition and the data on a raid 5/6. Apparently there's still some issues with raid 5/6
    - cestith 8d ago
      That's good information to have. Thanks.
- throw0101a 9d ago
  > Running it for more than two years now, without any hassles. On single SSDs though. But still, waddya even talkin about? Running ZFS since it was originally released on Solaris (June 2006) with zero problems (then FreeBSD, then Linux), including on RAID-5/6 (RAID-Z1/2) configurations, which btrfs still does not recommend using all these years later: * https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid56-status-and-recommended-practices https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid5... What have the btrfs developer(s) been doing for the last decade(+) that the code is still of debatable dependability?
  - gigatexal 9d ago
    yup, this.
- gigatexal 9d ago
  let's just say I'd put my bitcoin wallet with eleventy million btc on a zfs pool of a single disk before I did that on brtfs.

Running it for more than two years now, without any hassles. On single SSDs though. But still, waddya even talkin about?

cestith 10d ago
When I last took a serious look at btrfs its RAID 5 and RAID 6 modes could lose a whole lot of data if a single drive crashed or if the system lost power during a write. That's not supposed to happen on a RAID system with a journal. From what I understand single copy setups, RAID 1, and RAID 10 never had the same problem. It's left a bad taste for a lot of people though. Very early ext4 versions also had some data loss or data corruption, but I never hear people dismiss it completely for that brief spot of its history. Maybe part of that is because it was around 17 years ago and it's been a reliable default OS for many years now.
- scheme271 10d ago
  The recommendation is still to store metadata on a raid 1 or 1/0 partition and the data on a raid 5/6. Apparently there's still some issues with raid 5/6
  - cestith 8d ago
    That's good information to have. Thanks.
throw0101a 9d ago
> Running it for more than two years now, without any hassles. On single SSDs though. But still, waddya even talkin about? Running ZFS since it was originally released on Solaris (June 2006) with zero problems (then FreeBSD, then Linux), including on RAID-5/6 (RAID-Z1/2) configurations, which btrfs still does not recommend using all these years later: * https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid56-status-and-recommended-practices https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid5... What have the btrfs developer(s) been doing for the last decade(+) that the code is still of debatable dependability?
- gigatexal 9d ago
  yup, this.
gigatexal 9d ago
let's just say I'd put my bitcoin wallet with eleventy million btc on a zfs pool of a single disk before I did that on brtfs.