‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Btrfs/ZFS/bcachefs under workloads classic benchmarks skip

179 points · 190 comments · farlight

  1. lproven · · focus · HN ↗
    Interesting although I'd have liked more summaries: there's an awful lot there.

    But the reasons I choose filesystems are more about reliability, failure modes, surrounding tooling, and so on.

    Btrfs fails in several critical areas:

    1. No way to accurately find free space

    2. catastrophic failure on write if a volume fills up, the probability of which is greater because of #1

    3. repair tools usually do not recover a corrupted volume and in my testing are most likely to render as damaged volume completely unreadable, which makes #2 worse

    Put these things together and I can never trust Btrfs again. In the 9 years since I encountered these, I see no effort to fix them, just fooling around witg unimportant side details like performance tweaks.

    Fix the critical issues first then make it faster.

    1. sandreas · · focus · HN ↗
      This. Btrfs blew up without ANY reason at all in my case. Rebooted and the system won't even recognize any filesystem. All btrfs tools fails to recover a single file.

      Here is my journey: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;forum.cgsecurity.org&#x2F;phpBB3&#x2F;viewtopic.php?p=39143" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;forum.cgsecurity.org&#x2F;phpBB3&#x2F;viewtopic.php?p=39143

      I switched to ZFS and never Bad a Problem again.

      1. FrinkleFrankle · · focus · HN ↗
        I&#x27;ve had a ZFS array running since ~2009. It&#x27;s gone through upgrades and disk replacements, etc. Have not suffered a data loss in that time. ZFS I&#x27;d the goat.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.