Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arch Linux Powered CachyOS Now Defaults To Btrfs Rather Than XFS

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by timofonic View Post
    No, please. Btrfs sucks. This is a step back and I'm totally against it. XFS is a lot more robust.
    You've never dealt with XFS after a hard lock or power failure while under write load, I see.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx View Post

      Btrfs RAID 10 is basically guaranteed to lose data when any 2nd disk fails, even if it's in a different mirror than the first failure.
      That's ANY software raid 10.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by zexelon View Post

        Yeah... gotta say LVM + XFS is pretty darn rock solid! You can achieve all BTRFS functionality in a much more modular method.
        yes, it's rock solid but no, you cannot get all the btrfs functionality.

        * snapshots with LVM are ugly, slow and unreliable (and, over all, NOT cheap)
        * you don't have compression
        * you can't add/remove disks (only add)
        * you can't change redundacy policy on the fly
        * you don't have checksum based auto-repair of data

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx View Post
          Btrfs RAID 10 is basically guaranteed to lose data when any 2nd disk fails, even if it's in a different mirror than the first failure.
          Is this a reported bug? Because the solution is widely in use in all other raid systems. Just have many raid 1s and combine them to a large raid 0.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by timofonic View Post
            No, please. Btrfs sucks. This is a step back and I'm totally against it. XFS is a lot more robust.
            XFS only offers metadata journaling, nothing more.

            Comment


            • #36
              Several months ago, I installed endeavourOS with BTRFS, plus btrfs-assistant, btrfsmaintenance, and snapper. I observed that my SSD uses about 300~500GB write a day. Still don't know why it uses that much: https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/btrf...00gb-day/48503

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by intelfx View Post

                Correction: if you are prepared to throw entire racks of disks into your NAS, then ZFS is the obvious choice

                Btrfs is far more flexible than ZFS when it comes to changing the topology of your pool. If you have, like me, started with just a single HDD and later expanded that storage to 2, then 3, then 4 disks — then I just do not see how you would have used ZFS without recreating the pool at each point.


                In other words, ZFS might be infinitely more advanced (and don't get me wrong, it is), but all that is worth nothing if you can't use it within the physical (and, thus, financial) constraints you possess.
                Well, it isn't, ZFS is rather a dumb FS which delegates every problem to buy more hardware, from a Linux perspective it is similar to device mapper (hence Stratis), btrfs is more ambitious, which comes with a cost.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by t.s. View Post
                  Several months ago, I installed endeavourOS with BTRFS, plus btrfs-assistant, btrfsmaintenance, and snapper. I observed that my SSD uses about 300~500GB write a day. Still don't know why it uses that much: https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/btrf...00gb-day/48503
                  If you use Firefox, this could be one of the reasons. The problem is frequent writing to the disk (open tabs, etc.),​ sqlite and COW. The problem has been known for several years. Use profile-sync-daemon and so on.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ptr1337 View Post

                    Bcachefs is also available

                    We are only providing a netinstaller nowadays. Offline Installation got fully deprecated (old ISOs will still work).
                    The CLI Installer needs more love, but we are working on.
                    Hi Peter again. If you are still monitoring this post thread, quick question as a follow-up just to make sure I am doing the right thing here. The above makes me question so want to clarify. Looks like the latest release is only available as "cachyos-kde-linux-240609.iso" at ~2.5 GB. Happy to download that and toss on my Ventoy installer USB. But that file name and size make me question this being a universal netinstaller. That may be the file to use, but want to ask first. I'm ready to give this a spin but want to make sure I am treading down the right path.

                    Thanks for CachyOS and thanks for your participation on this thread!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by jacob View Post

                      That's ANY software raid 10.
                      What are you talking about? In any "normal" RAID 10 your data is all toast if the 2nd disk to die is the mirror of the 1st. If the 2nd disk to die is in the other mirror, you are fine. So you have a 33% chance of data loss (1 in 3). With Btrfs you essentially have a 100% chance of data loss because of the write strategy re-ordering the disks for the "mini RAID 10" writes.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X