Did anyone had the courage to use btrfs in production? Any stories to share?
CZ.NIC (the .cz tld administrator) is shipping OpenWRT-based wifi routers Turris Omnia and Turris Mox. Both of them use btrfs as their filesystem.
Five Years of Btrfs
61–70 of 240 posts
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Or, to put that another way: what are AWS and GCP using in their SANs (EBS; GCE PD) that allows them to take on-demand incremental snapshots of SAN volumes, and then ship those snapshots away from the origin node into safer out-of-cluster replicated storage (e.g. object storage)? As far as I know AWS does not use SANs because they consider it as anti-pattern. Most backups land on S3 because of reliability and pric…
So how is S3 implemented? Does it reuse any publicly available open source component?
It is a closed source project that has many components. I am not aware if any of those are opensource.
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
As best I can tell, reports of data loss on btrfs are all from the early 20-teens; after about 2014 or so I can't find anyone who claims to have lost data due to a btrfs bug on an up-to-date system.
RAID5 on btrfs has a write hole last time I checked. Bug has been around forever, and was around in 2014 for sure. Phoronix has some thorough performance comparisons between Ext4fs, Btrfs, XFS, and ZFS.
That one is here to stay, it is a property of software-based RAID. If it bothers you, use UPS.
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
RAID5 on btrfs has a write hole last time I checked. Bug has been around forever, and was around in 2014 for sure. Phoronix has some thorough performance comparisons between Ext4fs, Btrfs, XFS, and ZFS.
That one is here to stay, it is a property of software-based RAID. If it bothers you, use UPS.
ZFS-based RAID-5 (called raidz1) doesn't have write hole.
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#65Being 'The Dude' of file system is literally the opposite of what I want. When looking at ZFS talks and the incredible complexity of some of those operations that Btrfs seems to think are 'no big deal', I will simply not trust that. Specially because it has been proven over and over again that Btrfs claims its 'stable' and then a new series of issues show up. Or its 'stable' but not if you use 'XY feature', or if the…
> I think its much more NIMBY then a license issue How do you propose that ZFS be brought into Linux? When Sun released ZFS as open source, they made a deliberate decision to use a license that prevented it from being integrated into the Linux kernel. This was no accident. At the time, Sun was still pushing OpenSolaris which was losing ground to Linux. The ZFS on Linux project gets around this restriction by running…
> When Sun released ZFS as open source, they made a deliberate decision to use a license that prevented it from being integrated into the Linux kernel
This is simply totally false no matter how many times people repeat it. It pure FUD.
Sun picked the licence because they had to allow linking with closed code for their products, going with the GPL was simply not viable given the situation with drivers on their platforms. Their licence is actually build on the Mozilla licence without forcing resolution in California. Sun actually spend quite a bit of time and resources to develop a really good licence and made it as open they could given their constraints.
Also, Sun very agressivily pushed their technologies to other systems and Linux would have been no exeption. Sun helped Apple integrate D-Trace, and at the same time the hedge an evil plan to not give it to Linux? They helped upstream things to the BSDs as well.
That simply conspiricy nonsense that was typical with the 'its actually GNU/Linux' crowd that was pushed in the 2000s. Sun was seen as evil coorprate trying to stamp on the 'real open source' community, looking back on this now, the absurdity of that sentement should be clear. Sun made mistakes, but their overall track record was staller.
The idea that the function of the GPL is to block other Open Source code from integrating into an Open Source project is an abolute insane concept and a total perversion of the Idea of Open Source. Literally using the supposed 'most free' GPL to activly block and exclude other Open Source code from people.
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
RAID5 on btrfs has a write hole last time I checked. Bug has been around forever, and was around in 2014 for sure. Phoronix has some thorough performance comparisons between Ext4fs, Btrfs, XFS, and ZFS.
That one is here to stay, it is a property of software-based RAID. If it bothers you, use UPS.
Hardware RAID can also suffer from this indeed but does ZFS suffer from it as well? With exactly the same impact? AFAIK the filesystem stays consistent on ZFS.
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#67Did anyone had the courage to use btrfs in production? Any stories to share?
I think some of SUSE's customers certainly must? Otherwise it would not make any sense for them to support it and stand behind it by now...?
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#68I went on a quest a few years ago, thinking it would be good for the industry to standardize on a single next generation filesystem for UNIX. I started with ZFS on linux since that seemed to have the most vocal advocates. That lasted about a half year, until a bug in the code resulted in a completely corrupt disk, and I had to restore 4TB of data over a month from offside backups. That plus the licensing confusion ar…
I have a synology NAS on btrfs. One of the best computer purchases I've ever made.
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think its much more NIMBY then a license issue How do you propose that ZFS be brought into Linux? When Sun released ZFS as open source, they made a deliberate decision to use a license that prevented it from being integrated into the Linux kernel. This was no accident. At the time, Sun was still pushing OpenSolaris which was losing ground to Linux. The ZFS on Linux project gets around this restriction by running…
On the other hand, choosing to use GPL would prevent it from being integrated anywhere else. You'd also lose the patent protection granted by CDDL.
It's not like they couldn't use dual licenses, like Mozilla did at the time, for example.
Re: Five Years of Btrfs
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one is here to stay, it is a property of software-based RAID. If it bothers you, use UPS.
ZFS-based RAID-5 (called raidz1) doesn't have write hole. https://blogs.oracle.com/ahl/what-is-raid-z
Because ZFS raidz1 is not raid5, it's even labelled differently. Yes, it is a parity-based raid, but has slightly different semantics.