121–130 of 202 posts
Assuming it can be fixed in a 5.10.x patch release, it's a rather minor story - a bug that is quickly found after release and fixed, hopefully. It will be investigated: https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=160869337604422&w=2
The problem with btrfs is that it has quirks like that (and worse, much worse) all the time.
I wish to god people would get a clue with BTRFS: - don't use it because you think the name is "cool". Every time I go to a linux meetup, some idiot starts talking about the name. - it takes 5-10 years for a filesystem or database to mature after it's released. Otherwise you will lose data and cry. - the recent BTRFS performance improvements are against itself, not other filesystems. EXT4 is an excellent fs, as good…
> - it takes 5-10 years for a filesystem or database to mature after it's released. Great news! BTRFS was introduced in the mainline kernel in March 2009! It's been ten years.
That said, I'm going to continue to opt for Ext4 or XFS for the time being, even on distros where Btrfs is the default. Probably in a few years I'll get around to upgrading to Btrfs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenZFS, in general, does what it advertises fairly well, and does not advertise features it does not possess. In what way has your experience differed?
My answer does not in any way reference the quality of ZFS. It only addressed the GP's question which I quoted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - it takes 5-10 years for a filesystem or database to mature after it's released. Great news! BTRFS was introduced in the mainline kernel in March 2009! It's been ten years.
And it's been the default filesystem for openSUSE (system partitions only) since December 2015 [0], so there's been plenty of real-world usage too. [0] https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:13.2
I never do a separate home partition though, so I ended up with the entire disk in Btrfs. I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have when setting up partitions during installation, and didn't totally understand the implications of using Btrfs back then.
Eventually though, it filled up my entire drive with snapshots, causing me much confusion and many disk full errors until I could figure out what had happened.
That experience turned me off from openSUSE for several years, until I finally started using it (with a more conservative choice of Ext4) again for a few machines a couple years ago.
Not sure why anyone would use btrfs over zfs. And that's coming from someone who used to use old XFS in an unreliable power environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does OpenZFS have a similar ratio of bad to good posts?
ZFS's killer feature is religious inspiration. Write holes during resilvers are healthy and natural, but the same in a software RAID 5/6 configuration on BTRFS is unacceptably risky. Brought to you by the same people who don't think SMR disks are used with ZFS in enterprise.
I work with TBs of genomics data and I am at this point pretty convinced that some of that data changes on-disk. Every now and then. It's very weird. Recently I heard an interview (on one of the Jupiter broadcasting shows) about how btrfs is exposing errors of underlying hardware using their checksumming features, I had a bit of an Aha! moment. The files in question (BAM files) have a sort of checksumming built in (c…
Depending on how you store this data (the number of physical disks involved) you may also want to explore ZFS. ZFS and BTRFS have pretty comparable features, but given how battle-hardened ZFS is, and its ever-increasing integration into the Linux ecosystem, I'm seeing less and less reason to prefer BTRFS. Both do checksumming and regular scrubbing to help detect bitrot, but both need sufficient redundancy configured…
Still waiting to switch to bcachefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest you try Ubuntu LTS (not latest) or Debian less coolness factor but you don't get regression because only security updates are happening. Your hardware must be compatible and you need to resist the urge to get the latest shiny stuff.
Over the last 15 years, I've run a lot of distros on a lot of different hardware. On desktop, Fedora has been by far the most reliable. Ubuntu LTS, as far as I can tell from using it for work, just means that annoying bugs that have been fixed in the upstream never get backported. Case in point: Bluetooth on Ubuntu LTS has always been much less reliable for me than on Fedora. Disclaimer: This is only my anecdotal exp…