Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65

Thread: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    137

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    Is it ok that XFS, EXT4 are very old and need to support old stuff? I think it can be like an .mp3 audio format. What modern stable FS do you recommend with an SSD? It should has good performance including optimized CPU/RAM usage to support it. And not bloat with files/clusters etc.

  2. #12

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    Quote Originally Posted by psijic View Post
    Is it ok that XFS, EXT4 are very old and need to support old stuff? I think it can be like an .mp3 audio format. What modern stable FS do you recommend with an SSD? It should has good performance including optimized CPU/RAM usage to support it. And not bloat with files/clusters etc.
    A reliable wheel doesn't need re-inventing. If it does what is needed, no need to change for the sake of change. Ext4, XFS, and btrfs all support ssd trim. Make sure your partitioning tool aligns the allocations in an SSD-friendly manner for best performance.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    10,806
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    Quote Originally Posted by psijic View Post
    Is it ok that XFS, EXT4 are very old and need to support old stuff? I think it can be like an .mp3 audio format. What modern stable FS do you recommend with an SSD? It should has good performance including optimized CPU/RAM usage to support it. And not bloat with files/clusters etc.
    Just because a fs has been around for a very long time doesn't mean that it's "old" to the point of being outmoded.
    Both XFS and EXT4 have changed considerably since they first appeared and support additional features with performance enhancements.

    So, the "old" is also very "new."

    TSU
    Beginner Wiki Quickstart - https://en.opensuse.org/User:Tsu2/Quickstart_Wiki
    Solved a problem recently? Create a wiki page for future personal reference!
    Learn something new?
    Attended a computing event?
    Post and Share!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    57

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    I'm far from a btrfs fan but some context probably helps:

    People are making a bigger deal of this than it is. Since I left Red Hat in 2012 there hasn't been another engineer to pick up the work, and it is a lot of work.

    For RHEL you are stuck on one kernel for an entire release. Every fix has to be backported from upstream, and the further from upstream you get the harder it is to do that work.

    Btrfs has to be rebased every release. If moves too fast and there is so much work being done that you can't just cherry pick individual fixes. This makes it a huge pain in the ass.

    Then you have RHEL's "if we ship it we support it" mantra. Every release you have something that is more Frankenstein-y than it was before, and you run more of a risk of **** going horribly wrong. That's a huge liability for an engineering team that has 0 upstream btrfs contributors.

    The entire local file system group are xfs developers. Nobody has done serious btrfs work at Red Hat since I left (with a slight exception with Zach Brown for a little while.) Suse uses it as their default and has a lot of inhouse expertise. We use it in a variety of ways inside Facebook. It's getting faster and more stable, admittedly slower than I'd like, but we are getting there. This announcement from Red Hat is purely a reflection of Red Hat's engineering expertise and the way they ship kernels, and not an indictment of Btrfs itself.
    I guess the main thing to take away is that RH didn't think they'd miss out by not getting devs to support btrfs integration. That, in itself, sort of indicates they don't believe btrfs will play a significant role in the future.
    "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Elective Affinities, 1809)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Piemont
    Posts
    274

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    Use ext4 for everything
    A filesystem that continues to create snapshots like Btrfs, it seems that knowing that she is ill she continually supplies her medicines
    loyalty returns to those who practice it

  6. #16

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    As much as I despise that fact, when RedHat wants something to be a certain way in the Linux ecosystem, it most likely will. Add to this that they suffer from a severe case of the NIH-syndrome and have the cash and market power to pull it off; see SystemD and PulseAudio. They aren't Canonical that tries to play it big but doesn't have it to back that up, they actually can.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    I think BTRFS is a natural SSD eater, constantly writing itself, and recursively degrading the SSD.

    Personally, my experience with BTRFS was disastrous. It was back in 2015-2016 I was almost convinced that it was a hardware problem. Data constantly getting corrupt. After I re-installed with ext4, I am convinced that it was BTRFS. Ext4 is still my go-to and I think RHEL wants BTRFS to prove itself before introducing it in literally red hat distributions and maybe they weren't very happy with it.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Podunk
    Posts
    26,299
    Blog Entries
    15

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    On Thu 11 Jan 2018 01:36:01 AM CST, SJLPHI wrote:

    I think BTRFS is a natural SSD eater, constantly writing itself, and
    recursively degrading the SSD.

    Personally, my experience with BTRFS was disastrous. It was back in
    2015-2016 I was almost convinced that it was a hardware problem. Data
    constantly getting corrupt. After I re-installed with ext4, I am
    convinced that it was BTRFS. Ext4 is still my go-to and I think RHEL
    wants BTRFS to prove itself before introducing it in literally red hat
    distributions and maybe they weren't very happy with it.


    Hi
    No SSD's have been eaten here running btrfs for many years, OCZ,
    Crucial and SanDisk ones... most new ones these days are 20GiB
    plus writes a day, don't even worry about it.

    There are still a number of controllers and disks that are blacklisted
    by the kernel for things like trim (Samsung are one due to possible
    corruption).

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° SUSE Knowledge Partner (Linux Counter #276890)
    openSUSE Leap 42.3|GNOME 3.20.2|4.4.104-39-default
    If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
    please show your appreciation and click on the star below... Thanks!


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Oz
    Posts
    11,727
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    Quote Originally Posted by V_idocq View Post
    Use ext4 for everything
    A filesystem that continues to create snapshots like Btrfs, it seems that knowing that she is ill she continually supplies her medicines
    What an interesting thought.
    Leap 42.3 & 15.1(Beta) &KDE
    FYIs from the days of yore

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Piemont
    Posts
    274

    Default Re: Is BTRFS dead? Who is the new king?

    Quote Originally Posted by swerdna View Post
    What an interesting thought.
    If it was not interesting, would not even deign to answer hehehehe
    loyalty returns to those who practice it

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •