this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
22 points (82.4% liked)

homelab

7074 readers
2 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Btrfs gets a bad rap sometimes but I have been using it for years and it works very well. It is able to take failing hardware and power outages and still has good performance.

all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For those without knowledge: Alternatives to BTRFS are what? EXT4 or NTFS?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago

Mostly ZFS, XFS and ext4

[–] Valon_Blue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Correct, btrfs is a filesystem format.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are the alternatives to it? NTFS? EXT4? ExFAT? FAT32??

[–] sxan@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

xfs. ext4 doesn't have a comparable feature set, and nobody is going to use those others as their main filesystems on Linux. bcachefs will be a contender, once it's included in the kernel, or if you're the sort who compiles their own kernels.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The only file-system that is somewhat comparable to btrfs is OpenZFS. Xfs isn't.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, zfs is what I meant. Or yfs, as in "Y-use anything but btr-FS?"

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like zfs or btrfs?
At least I usually read about storage file system usually being ZFS by default.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed, I switched over from OpenZFS to btrfs and while it does lack some more advanced features, using btrfs for raid1 disk pools has been a very solid and hassle free experience.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes BTRFS is really good and solid. Usually survives hardware failure much better than the EXT* crap. And sub volumes and snapshots, damn finally a modern filesystem.

[–] beerclue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be honest, I don't see a benefit for btrfs (or zfs). I prefer plain ext4 (no LVM). It's simpler and faster. I have no need for snapshots. Proxmox handles my vms and my working machines are just a collection of dot files... But that's just me. It's good that there are choices.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] beerclue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's been a while since I looked at benchmarks (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-5.14-File-Systems). It could be these days.

[–] Glarrf@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My anecdotal experience with btrfs is that it constantly broke in raid 1, no problems with any other filesystems on the exact same hardware and setup. YMMV

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How long ago was that? Modern btrfs is pretty stable.

[–] Glarrf@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

Last year, unraid, identical SSDs. I changed so many sata and power cables, so many settings.

[–] billygoat@catata.fish 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It has been a while since I looked at it but does proxmox support HA replication using btrfs? From what I remember only zfs worked with those features.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know as I don't use that feature

[–] amniote@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its supposed to be called betterFS but Jim Salter keeps calling it butter FS. Doesn't really inspire confidence. At least it's gonna need.. a better name

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know who Jim is but I just call it butterfs

[–] amniote@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jim Salter, the former mod of r/zfs ? Former Ars Technica ? Currently in the ' 2.5 Admins' podcast?

He's the hot knife of butter FS.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

Ok that still doesn't ring a bell but he seems important to you so that's good enough for me