4 ms·
Yea but there is a continuum of reliability -- ZFS is way better than HFS+ in this regard. Also, Btrfs.
by santaclaus 12y ago
Yea but there is a continuum of reliability -- ZFS is way better than HFS+ in this regard. Also, Btrfs.
- 286c8cb04bda 12y agoI've used btrfs (at several-petabytes-of-data scale) and wouldn't trust it any more than HFS+. Use ZFS if you like, or XFS, or even ext4 instead.
- yungchin 12y agoWould love to hear more about your findings with btrfs.
- 286c8cb04bda 12y agoThe biggest recurring issue was deadlocks in the garbage collector. It would start cleanup in a subvolume and trip all over itself. After that, any I/O to that specific directory would never return. The only solutions was to reboot the server and fsck for a few hours. Second frequent problem: Hitting 90% capacity in a filesystem has a non-trivial chance to ruin it forever. Hit the wrong code path, and, even if you immediately delete a bunch of things, I/O to that filesystem would be forever 3000% slower.
- diroussel 12y agoI would also like to learn more about your view of btrfs. Is it a fundamental problem? Or an implementation, or community issue you have?