Am Wed, 07 May 2014 06:56:12 +0800 schrieb William Kenworthy <bi...@iinet.net.au>:
> On 05/06/14 18:18, Marc Joliet wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've become increasingly motivated to convert to btrfs. From what I've > > seen, > > it has become increasingly stable; enough so that it is apparently supposed > > to > > become the default FS on OpenSuse in 13.2. > > > > I am motivated by various reasons: > .... > > My btrfs experience: > > I have been using btrfs seriously (vs testing) for a while now with > mixed results but the latest kernel/tools seem to be holding up quite well. > > ~ 2yrs on a Apple/gentoo laptop (I handed it back to work a few months > back) - never a problem! (mounted with discard/trim) That's one HDD, right? From what I've read, that's the most tested and stable use case for btrfs, so it doesn't surprise me that much that it worked so well. > btrfs on a 128MB intel ssd (linux root drive) had to secure reset a few > times as btrfs said the filesystem was full, but there was 60G+ free - > happens after multiple crashes and it seemed the btrfs metadata and the > ssd disagreed on what was actually in use - reset drive and restore from > backups :( Now running ext4 on that drive with no problems - will move > back to btrfs at some point. All the more reason to stick with EXT4 on the SSD for now. [snip interesting but irrelevant ceph scenario] > > 3 x raid 0+1 (btrfs raid 1 with 3 drives) - working well for about a month That last one is particularly good to know. I expect RAID 0, 1 and 10 to work fairly well, since those are the oldest supported RAID levels. > ~10+ gentoo VM's, one ubuntu and 3 x Win VM's with kvm/qemu storage on > btrfs - regular scrubs show an occasional VM problem after system crash > (VM server), otherwise problem free since moving to pure btrfs from > ceph. Gentoo VM's were btrfs in raw qemu containers and are now > converted to qcow2 - no problems since moving from ceph. Fragmentation > on VM's is a problem but "cp --reflink vm1 vm2" for vm's is really > really cool! That matches the scenario from the ars technica article; the author is a huge fan of file cloning in btrfs :) . And yeah, too bad autodefrag is not yet stable. > I have a clear impression that btrfs has been incrementally improving > and the current kernel and recovery tools are quite good but its still > possible to end up with an unrecoverable partition (in the sense that > you might be able to get to some of the the data using recovery tools, > but the btrfs mount itself is toast) > > Backups using dirvish - was getting an occasional corruption (mainly > checksum) that seemed to coincide with network problems during a backup > sequence - have not seen it for a couple of months now. Only lost whole > partition once :( Dirvish really hammers a file system and ext4 usually > dies very quickly so even now btrfs is far better here. I use rsnapshot here with an external hard drive formatted to EXT4. I'm not *that* worried about the FS dying, more that it dies at an inopportune moment where I can't immediately restore it. [again, snip interesting but irrelevant ceph scenario] > > I am slowly moving my systems from reiserfs to btrfs as my confidence in > it and its tools builds. I really dislike ext4 and its ability to lose > valuable data (though that has improved dramaticaly) but it still seems > better than btrfs on solid state and hard use - but after getting burnt > I am avoiding that scenario so need to retest. Rising confidence: good to hear :) . Perhaps this will turn out similarly to when I was using the xf86-video-ati release candidates and bleeding edge gentoo-sources/mesa/libdrm/etc. (for 3D support in the r600 driver): I start using it shortly before it starts truly stabilising :) . -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
