Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs Updates Sent In For The Linux 4.17 Kernel

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

  • Btrfs Updates Sent In For The Linux 4.17 Kernel

    Phoronix: Btrfs Updates Sent In For The Linux 4.17 Kernel

    David Sterba sent in the Btrfs file-system updates today for the Linux 4.17 kernel merge window...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...x-4.17-Updates

  • #2
    Does anyone know how to recover from BTRFS: "mount: /mnt: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdd, missing codepage or helper program, or other error."

    I basically have 8TB of data on a BTRFS drive that wont mount

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
      Does anyone know how to recover from BTRFS: "mount: /mnt: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdd, missing codepage or helper program, or other error."

      I basically have 8TB of data on a BTRFS drive that wont mount
      Try mounting /dev/sdd1 instead?

      Comment


      • #4
        Why do anyone use BTRFS? It is broken. USA sent a man to the moon in less time than BTRFS has been in development. The forums are full of stories where people loose data using BTRFS. A filesystem should above all, be secure. If it is fast and unsecure - who would use it??

        If a kernel has bugs, you will loose a few hours of data when it crashes. If a filesystem has bugs, you will loose many years of data when it crashes. Why would anyone gamble on using an unsecure filesystem? Sure, BTRFS might be ultra fast (I dont know) but it is not safe.

        Comment


        • #5
          I like BTRFS and use it for many years now, but its performance is too far from some of competitors and occasional stability issues, that mostly gone now, but somehow manage to rarely show up, all of that makes me wondering what should we expect in future from it. If at least performance aspect is not resolved, it will die eventually, which would be very sad and UI BTRFS provides is very convenient and easy to use.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pavlerson View Post
            Why do anyone use BTRFS? It is broken.
            Is it? I'm using Btrfs on my computer with compression for a more than a year and it's working without issues. He survived several power losses and I never had to recover my data. Snapshots is great feature and saved me few times. openSUSE using Btrfs as default FS too. As I know Facebook is using Btrfs on servers too. There are a lot of forum stories about ext4 bugs too.

            The fact Btrfs is in development you see as a low stability indicator? So what about fact that ext4 is in development since 2006? What about fact that Linux is in development since 1991? Btrfs today is quite stable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pavlerson View Post
              Why do anyone use BTRFS? It is broken. USA sent a man to the moon in less time than BTRFS has been in development. The forums are full of stories where people loose data using BTRFS. A filesystem should above all, be secure. If it is fast and unsecure - who would use it??
              I use btrfs on my PC btrfs from 2008 (or 2006 ?). It survives an hard with HW problem. The data checksum was very useful at the time. I used it with a PC with a problematic power supply. It still works.
              Only one time I had to clean the log to mount.

              So on standard configuration (1 hard disk, no compression) is quite solid on the basis of my experience. In the last year a lot of work was done to increase the robustness of the RAID5/6 support.

              Anyway, it is true that its develop is quite slow; but which filesystem other than ZFS has its capabilities ? Which filesystem has the checksum on the data ? In its develop a lot of error were made; but it is the most complex filesystem in the linux ecosystem (I can't count ZFS, because it is out of linux tree).




              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nazar-pc View Post
                I like BTRFS and use it for many years now, but its performance is too far from some of competitors
                btrfs has no competitors(no fs with comparable featureset)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pavlerson View Post
                  Why do anyone use BTRFS? It is broken. USA sent a man to the moon in less time than BTRFS has been in development. The forums are full of stories where people loose data using BTRFS. A filesystem should above all, be secure. If it is fast and unsecure - who would use it??

                  If a kernel has bugs, you will loose a few hours of data when it crashes. If a filesystem has bugs, you will loose many years of data when it crashes. Why would anyone gamble on using an unsecure filesystem? Sure, BTRFS might be ultra fast (I dont know) but it is not safe.
                  I'm using Btrfs on a laptop whose battery is in so bad shape that it runs out in a couple of minutes so I get routine hard resets at random times when power cord accidentally detaches. I have never ran into data loss issues.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
                    Does anyone know how to recover from BTRFS: "mount: /mnt: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdd, missing codepage or helper program, or other error."

                    I basically have 8TB of data on a BTRFS drive that wont mount
                    check your syslog.
                    what are your typical mount options?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X