Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CoreOS Moves From Btrfs To EXT4 + OverlayFS

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

  • CoreOS Moves From Btrfs To EXT4 + OverlayFS

    Phoronix: CoreOS Moves From Btrfs To EXT4 + OverlayFS

    CoreOS developers have had enough issues with the Btrfs file-system that they've decided to move from using the Btrfs file-system to instead use EXT4 plus OverlayFS...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...EXT4-OverlayFS

  • #2
    BTRFS

    We've been using BTRFS on multiple 24x7x365 systems for about two and a half years now, without issue. In fact it saved us when our backup drive silently failed, writing corrupted data. Without BTRFS CRCing the data, we wouldn't have known that we didn't have a good backup. We're even using some unusual configurations, like DUP-mode data on a single USB thumbdrive, to prevent against flash cell failure corruption. It's been completely solid.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is what happens when sheeple run headlessly into new "solutions" solutions , naively believing every PR pamphlet they see.

      With big help from media sites which generously help spreading the sh*t around.

      "Hey it works for me" is not good enough in such applications.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by macemoneta View Post
        We've been using BTRFS on multiple 24x7x365 systems for about two and a half years now, without issue. In fact it saved us when our backup drive silently failed, writing corrupted data. Without BTRFS CRCing the data, we wouldn't have known that we didn't have a good backup. We're even using some unusual configurations, like DUP-mode data on a single USB thumbdrive, to prevent against flash cell failure corruption. It's been completely solid.
        I'm very happy it's been working for you, but a quick glance at the mailing list should (rightly) scare you about some of the potential bugs that are still lurking in btrfs. (It's a lot better than it was, but there are still regular bug reports.)

        Hopefully Josef's "introduce random failures" testing code will enable more rapid stabilization.

        Don't get me wrong, I really want btrfs's features (esp. pervasive checksumming), but right now it doesn't look stable enough.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by macemoneta View Post
          We've been using BTRFS on multiple 24x7x365 systems for about two and a half years now, without issue. In fact it saved us when our backup drive silently failed, writing corrupted data. Without BTRFS CRCing the data, we wouldn't have known that we didn't have a good backup. We're even using some unusual configurations, like DUP-mode data on a single USB thumbdrive, to prevent against flash cell failure corruption. It's been completely solid.
          That's good.
          I only saw failure and lock-up. But then again, you only trip the bugs if you are (over?)actively using it.
          As a ~ for my desktop it never locked up.
          Currently I have my ~/.steam/ formatted as a 300GB+ btrfs partition, since I don't mind loosing steam data.
          I hope with 3.19 I can use btrfs for more important data, since I do want crc's on my data. Otoh, I can tahoe-lafs my backups on ext4.

          Comment


          • #6
            My OpenSUSE install picked btrfs by default so I thought I'd go with it.
            A few weeks later I'm stuck trying to remove data from the drive since it filled up in no-time with tons and tons of fucking snapshots.
            Had to get a hold of a usb stick and format that to btrfs and add it so that I could REMOVE DATA (since removing files doesn't actually free up space, you need to rebalance the metadata manually )

            Why would a rolling distro use this by default, when users have to manually watch out for their drive filling up and manually run rebalancing and deletion of snapshots every now and then? All through a few dozen terminal commands.

            If you are administrating larger systems I'm sure btrfs could be really useful, but as the default for a desktop? No fucking way.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Micket View Post
              A few weeks later I'm stuck trying to remove data from the drive since it filled up in no-time with tons and tons of fucking snapshots.
              Sad to hear - btrfs by itself, however, does not do any snapshots unless it is told to do so... I am pretty sure a rolling distro will not do that.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have more confidence in OpenZFS of Linux than Btrfs?
                Sadly due intended license incompatibility it can only be shipped by default under certain conditions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why not XFS? Maybe shrinking support is crucial. It's XFS's achilles heel.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by olifre View Post
                    Sad to hear - btrfs by itself, however, does not do any snapshots unless it is told to do so... I am pretty sure a rolling distro will not do that.
                    Just the fact that I could fill up my drive and not being able to restore the space without adding another device to the pool is a pretty crucial flaw. The distro was a OpenSUSE factory snapshot, so, definitely a rolling distro from the start.
                    Happened on two machines, at around the same time. I probably have to look over them again and rebalance them before they get both get f'ed up again.

                    I haven't had time to figure out how to make it stop taking snapshots all the fucking time, so I just delete them for now.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X