Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's A Proposal To Switch Fedora 33 On The Desktop To Using Btrfs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Space Heater View Post

    Looks like btrfs is *more* likely to lose your data in the case of a drive failure than ext4 is. The common case is on a single disk and most users suck at making backups, remember that. So ultimately btrfs being able to warn users of corruption (but not be able to do anything about it in the *common* case) is tempered by the fact that when disk failures happen btrfs will generally behave worse.
    You seem to forget that corruption is also lost data. Ext2/3/4 has nothing that does anything about corrupted data either e.g. it can't fix it so you are left with a "seems to work , but may not work, and you sure as hell wound not know if it does not work" situation. If you want to compare ext4 then you have to compare with the same feature set.

    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Great, so you agree and you won't brush it off as an edge case right?
    Yes and no - the biggest issue I currently have with BTRFS is that it will not kick or temporarily blacklist a disk that is misbehaving from a pool. That can easily be scripted, but there may be better solutions. Such as giving it a lesser priority , making that disk read only depending on if it only fails for writes for example.

    ​​​​​​​
    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Oh right, dealing with errors is an edge case so it's ok.
    No, you WANT to misunderstand. Try to understand instead...

    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Blaming the users for data loss. It's like you have zero empathy for users, what a surprise.
    And you seem to have zero empathy for developers. People work on something that you can use for free, they run test on BTRFS and try to catch all regressions etc. That is very hard to do regardless of the software project. Have you ever written code yourself?! The bug that appeared in 5.2 (or maybe it was 5.1) was not initially obvious , I did quite a few things with my filesystem at that time which happened to be just about when that bug was present. Had I not been so eager to test stuff and waited a bit then I would have avoided this problem entirely. Accidents happen - that is why you need backups if you value your data at all. Any sane user with a minimal technical understanding should realize that.

    Originally posted by Space Heater View Post
    Just think about it.
    Perhaps you should think a bit as well.

    http://www.dirtcellar.net

    Comment


    • Originally posted by waxhead View Post
      You seem to forget that corruption is also lost data. Ext2/3/4 has nothing that does anything about corrupted data either e.g. it can't fix it so you are left with a "seems to work , but may not work, and you sure as hell wound not know if it does not work" situation. If you want to compare ext4 then you have to compare with the same feature set.
      You seem to forget that I clearly stated the common case is a single disk system. In this case, btrfs will only be able to tell the user corruption occurred, the warnings are not actionable by the user. Most users do not have good backups, so the ability to detect corruption is strongly countered by btrfs being more likely to lose your data in the event of disk failure.

      File system durability is the foundation, it doesn't matter how many extra features another file system has if in the end you are sacrificing some of its ability to not corrupt data. Not to mention that end users will not be exposed to the advanced features of btrfs, and therefore few if any will take advantage of its features.

      Originally posted by waxhead View Post
      And you seem to have zero empathy for developers. People work on something that you can use for free, they run test on BTRFS and try to catch all regressions etc. That is very hard to do regardless of the software project.
      I'm glad you're not denying that you don't have empathy for users, and so there's not much more to discuss about btrfs being ready as a default. You've openly said that anyone not using an LTS kernel should expect/deserve data loss, that's not how kernel development works at all and that's certainly not how Fedora delivers kernels to their users.

      As for your dubious claim about me, saying a file system handles failure worse than ext4, and has worse data recovery abilities than ext4 is not some personal insult to the developers, it's reality. You're unable to respond to what I'm saying and citing other than to dismiss it and then say I'm being mean to btrfs developers for citing an academic paper and pointing out common shortcomings users run into. Further, btrfs developers have received multiple reports about its unfriendly behavior and the response from them has been radio silence, I'd say that's in line with a lack of empathy for end users.

      Why do you have zero empathy for the ext4 developers that worked hard to make their file system more durable? How do other file system developers manage to avoid dropping their users to a recovery shell as much as btrfs?

      Originally posted by waxhead View Post
      Have you ever written code yourself?!
      Yes I have written code all by myself, have you?

      Originally posted by waxhead View Post
      The bug that appeared in 5.2 (or maybe it was 5.1) was not initially obvious , I did quite a few things with my filesystem at that time which happened to be just about when that bug was present. Had I not been so eager to test stuff and waited a bit then I would have avoided this problem entirely. Accidents happen - that is why you need backups if you value your data at all. Any sane user with a minimal technical understanding should realize that.
      Yeah I'm sure that any sane user should blame themselves when a file system loses their data. You're divorced from reality if you think most users have backups, regardless of whether or not they should have backups. Once you wrap your head around that you will realize how non-trivial it is for a file system to lose data, especially a file system that would be used by default. You are not the average user.

      Comment


      • For the desktop, I chose a file system that was efficient, space wise, and cpu wise. My decision led me to xfs.
        For the past few years, I have consistantly installed xfs, and have not had issues with it's use.
        For example. Set aside a 20gig partition.
        Format it with btrfs, then look at available space.
        Format the same space with ext4
        Format the same space with xfs

        Do a 15gig write/read test with each format.

        Test crash recovery.

        For SSDs, choose the one you feel most comfortable to use.

        Comment

        Working...
        X