cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4274796

Just wanted to share some love for this filesystem.

I’ve been running a btrfs raid1 continuously for over ten years, on a motley assortment of near-garbage hard drives of all different shapes and sizes. None of the original drives are still in it, and that server is now on its fourth motherboard. The data has survived it all!

It’s grown to 6 drives now, and most recently survived the runtime failure of a SATA controller card that four of them were attached to. After replacing it, I was stunned to discover that the volume was uncorrupted and didn’t even require repair.

So knock on wood — I’m not trying to tempt fate here. I just want to say thank you to all the devs for their hard work, and add some positive feedback to the heap since btrfs gets way more than it’s fair share of flak, which I personally find to be undeserved. Cheers!

  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been using it in Fedora since they switched to it as the default FS. I have not done anything special. I am not trying anything fancy except compress-force=zstd:1. Seems good to me!

    • deadcatbounce@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why just :1? The default is :3 and looking at the timings for zstd deflate speed vs compression level (Google for it … ), becomes slow at around 7.

      Don’t mean shit to me but suggest you reconsider.

      • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Slow relative to what? Any zstd compression, while really fast, will be slower than native write speeds to my nvme. A tiny bit of ratio gain isn’t worthwhile to me.

  • blashork [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m glad it’ working well for you, but I don’t think it’ true to say that btrfs gets beyond its fair share of flak. It gets the exactly correct amount of flak for what it is. Every place I have worked at that wanted to deploy a COW fs on like, a NAS or server, has always gone with zfs. btrfs is such a mess it never even enters the conversation. Even if it can have its bugs ironed out, the bcache dev was right in pointing out that its on disk formats are poorly designed for their job, and cannot be revised except in a new version of the entire fs. I hope bcachefs gets merged into the kernel next year, that’s a filesystem I would actually trust with my data.

    • ProtonBadger@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Btrfs does get a lot of flak based on hearsay or experiences that are out of date. It works well in a lot of scenarios and is used a lot now, ZFS is also a good fs for many use cases, especially in enterprise situations.

      I can’t comment on the on-disk formats as I have no experience there but Btrfs works well in a lot of use cases for for a lot of users.

      Bcachefs sounds promising but it does have a long way to go and will need a lot of testing. It’s getting into the kernel to get more testing mileage on it and encourage more developers, it only have one guy working on it (except for the casefolding submission) which is a big problem for both present and future. Hopefully it’ll get more devs interested.

      Never trust any filesystem, or the storage media. Consider anything that holds your data to be fallible.