I would like to know and after a search via google I was not able to find out feedback of people which are running systems with TB’s of drive space on top of BTRFS systems. My main problem is that I discovered minutes ago that my local kernel git tree is corrupted (not a big thing due to I can git clone the whole tree again) but I have most of my/our data on this box with backups, holiday photos and videos and all this data is now at 5.8 TB in total. I backup said amount of data to an identical box via rsync once a week and both boxes have a LVM/XFS layout - now for the moment I fear that I get somehow a silent corruption as both boxes have the same kernel git tree corruption and I checked via fsck.xfs and nothing shows up so I had this idea to install on one box Solaris with ZFS or Leap 42.2 (or SLES) on top of BTRFS.
Any feedback from community members with BTRFS in daily use and maybe a couple of TB’s of data are more than welcome (I have this slight idea due to I pull via a script that maybe in the past the automatic repacking of the tree which occurs from time to time got somehow damaged but that’s something for git people).
Thank you for your time!
I run BtrFS with a couple TBs on my backup drives, and I think that’s
fine, but I do not really do much advanced stuff with it other than use it
as a target for rsync stuff. Of course, so far it has been fine (couple
years now). I also run BtrFS as the primary filesystem on my laptops
(have since 2011 or 2012) which are the boxes that control my life and
which I use for many hours per day (/home is XFS of course) and they have
been great too. All of my boxes use LVM underneath for flexibility and
full disk encryption (/boot is separate usually).
With that written, I am not sure, for backups, that BtrFS is any better or
worse than other things. The neat part is that is can do snapshots, so
you could easily have multiple versions of data, so that’s pretty awesome,
though you can do the same thing using magical hard linking tricks of
rsync on any old filesystem. The views to the various versions would
differ a bit comparing rsync with BtrFS, but in the end you could
basically have full backups all of the time that only take space of
incremental backups. Hooray for CoW (BtrFS) and hard links (rsync)!
If you find this post helpful and are logged into the web interface,
show your appreciation and click on the star below…
Thank you and that’s the same impression I have now - for system parts btrfs is handy in case an update must be rolled back via a snapshot but for larger data chunks like databases or videos/pictures it’s still recommended to have them on XFS/Ext4 partions/volumes so I will still use XFS until the next release to check again whether I switch to btrfs (for the moment I don’t think it make sense to switch as long not a lot of heavy users use btrfs so it get more testing/development work).