Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
The CoW nature of Btrfs means it's often slower than ext4 for common tasks, right? It also means more writes to your SSDs.
I've stuck to ext4 so far, as someone who doesn't really have a need for snapshotting.
Edit: I'm not an expert on file systems in the least, so do chime in if these assumptions are incorrect.
Meh, ssds are basically cow by nature anyway, you have to erase large blocks, you can't just rewrite into them.
I can't be the only one that reads BTFRS as butt farts
If you were, not anymore. That's what I'm calling it from now on.
I zoomed in to read what they're saying on the bottom right and was disappointed.
ZFS: π
I wish the licensing would be Linux compatible
Overall solid but BTRFS has the advantage of being Linux native in the way it works. Right now I wouldn't use btrfs for a critical raid system but it is great for single disks.
As someone who uses btrfs mostly (sometimes ext4, but I don't really know why...), can someone explain the benefits of ZFS over the previous two I mentioned?
The two biggest benefits are that it's basically a finished implementation of btrfs (see data corruption in large pools and raid 5 and 6), as well as being able to encrypt and compress at the same time.
Plus, and I don't know if this is a ZFS-specific thing, being able to group disks into VDevs and not just into one big raid.
your data will have the same fate as that baby
Made smaller for easy delivery?
It was gonna be twins but they deduplicated, so conveniently the one simply holds a reference to the existence of the other one.
I wish we could just get one good open, unified filesystem that all OS's support. It sucks that if I want a usb drive to function on both Android and Linux, I have to format it to FAT. That pos fs can't even store files over 4 gigs.
I normally prefer copyleft licenses, but this is one case something more permissive seems appropriate.
practically begging for someone to post the competing standards xkcd
Honest question: I thought this limitation was the purpose of exFAT? π€
I don't use it much myself though so I'm not sure.
exFAT seems very fragile and likes to corrupt often, MacOS especially likes to break it
That surgeon general's warning sent me into a giggle fit.
Wtf lol
IDK what they mean by better ssd I/O performance, btrfs was the worst FS I tested for some heavy SSD workloads (like writing thousands of little pngs in short time, file searches, merging huge weights with some paging)β¦
The features are fantastic, especially for HDDs, but itβs an inherently high overhead FS.
ext4 was also bad. F2FS and XFS are great, and I've stuck with F2FS for now.
idk man I just wanted to make a funny meme I've never run benchmarks myself and I just use btrfs for the features
Oh cool! Share the funny meme when it's done.
(just pulling your leg. ^^)
Brutal lol
Still no built-in encryption support :(
What are the benefits of built-in encryption versus LUKS ?
LUKS encrypts the whole drive, native FS encryption can encrypt it partially (e.g. just the home partition). Additionally, decrypting without a keyboard is a pain or impossible (e.g. touch screen only devices).
Hot format. Invest invest INVEST
What's the problem with btrfs really?
It is nice but it also feels like it is perpetually unfinished. Is there some major flaw in the design?
Mostly just the RAID5 and 6 instability, it's fantastic otherwise. But I'm kinda excited to try out bcachefs pretty soon, as well.
Iβve seen ZFS in production use on pools with hundreds of TBs, clustered together into clusters of many PBs. The people running that donβt even think about BTRFS, and certainly wonβt actively consider it for anything.
But those are ancillary reasons. Iβll quote the big reason from the archwiki:
The RAID 5 and RAID 6 modes of Btrfs are fatally flawed, and should not be used for "anything but testing with throw-away dataβ.
For economic reasons, you need erasure coding for bigger pools, either classic RAID5/6 or DRAID. BTRFS will either melt your data in RAID5/6 or not support DRAID at all.