The ratio of bad to good posts about BTRFS always made me wonder why anyone would roll with it. Don’t put your fs in crazy.
Nobody posts about things that are working fine.
Does OpenZFS have a similar ratio of bad to good posts?
Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
11–20 of 202 posts
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with btrfs is that it has quirks like that (and worse, much worse) all the time.
Why does btrfs have those issues compared to other filesystems? I'd love to use btrfs too. Note that I deeply respect people who can write such complicated code, which I couldn't. Would Rust solve the non-speed issues? Rust-in-kernel discussion from August: https://lwn.net/Articles/829858/
> Why does btrfs have those issues compared to other filesystems?
As someone that has built infrastructure on BtrFS for years, the scary stories are mostly just hot air and the stability of other filesystems is really not significantly better.
Bugs like this happen, this is why Linus releases many release-candiates every kernel, this one got through as 10 was a rather massive kernel and there were several regressions. Including one that caused a new release just hours after the supposedly final one. Distros wait a bit longer before shipping an updated kernel and none of these hit actual users.
As far as I know there is no reason to abstain from using Btrfs. When Fedora talked about not using it, they had as reason that they had no in-house expertise.
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#13With brtfs having all kind of crazy bugs and zfs never being finished, I guess it's back to ext4...
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#14This version has got to be the worst kernel released in a while in terms of regression, from AMDGPU null pointer dereference crash[0] to f2fs data corruption bug[1] and now this. Fixes for these are on their way as far as I can tell but since the stable team are probably on Christmas vacation it might take a while.
[0] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1943906#p1943906
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#15I 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 as XFS performance-wise overall.
Source: DBA and storage engineer.
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#16With brtfs having all kind of crazy bugs and zfs never being finished, I guess it's back to ext4...
Is ZFS not ready for use? I was going to use it in production next year.
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#17With brtfs having all kind of crazy bugs and zfs never being finished, I guess it's back to ext4...
It's an edge case performance regression. There were also changes that improve performance in other cases. That happens all the time in software development.
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#18With brtfs having all kind of crazy bugs and zfs never being finished, I guess it's back to ext4...
Is ZFS not ready for use? I was going to use it in production next year.
My home server is hardly production, but it has been running a ZFS raidz+1 for more than 5 years, and survived a disk failure.
(Nb, avoid SMR hard drives - the rebuild took more than a week!)
Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#19Re: Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with btrfs is that it has quirks like that (and worse, much worse) all the time.
Why does btrfs have those issues compared to other filesystems? I'd love to use btrfs too. Note that I deeply respect people who can write such complicated code, which I couldn't. Would Rust solve the non-speed issues? Rust-in-kernel discussion from August: https://lwn.net/Articles/829858/
> Why does btrfs have those issues compared to other filesystems?
Mostly because it has lots of features and as a consequence, is pretty large and complex. Closer to ZFS than ext2.
Btrfs suffers from a initial bad rep, which is difficult to overcome.