XFS File-System With Linux 5.12 Has "A Lot Going On This Time"

[angrypie]

No shrinking was never a big deal for me. I just backup and reformat while also taking the opportunity to clean up my files (I'm not a digital data hoarder, but having plenty of space makes you careless about what you leave on your drive).

If they every land copy-on-write support it will be the perfect filesystem. Maybe they should've tried to improve XFS instead of wasting time with Btrfs (which is anything but ready).

[MadeUpName]

I haven't really been paying attention to XFS in recent years. Have they come up with a way to correct the file system if it becomes corrupted yet?

[useless]

Btrfs has lots of cool features, but you can't trust it with your data.

FUD, as usual.

[waxhead]

I heard that Rust is going to be allowed in the Linux kernel, then imagine if someone writes a file system in Rust, then maybe we can have a reliable file system without any file system corruption.

Do you really think that a programming language has much to do with how reliable a filesystem is? You can write the most error prone algorithm in BASIC or wreck an entire database easily while coding in PHP.

[skeevy420]

XFS' (lack of) shrink support is the main thing that has stopped me using it all these years.

That said, now we have btrfs I'm not sure if I would bother going back to XFS even if it did pick up shrink support. Maybe if it picked up subvolume support as well.

And yes, for typical laptop uses you *can* trust btrfs with your data, at least on *buntu and Manjaro.

Same here in regards to XFS and shrink. Using XFS and screwing myself with crappy partition layout choices is what got me into filesystem with subvolumes.

My only problem with BTRFS is that incompatibilities between it and software like GRUB occur from time to time and I've been hit by them. I didn't have a good time between Linux 4.0 and 5.0 with BTRFS /boot due to using rolling distributions. FWIW, I can say that about ZFS. IMHO, especially when rolling, they're both a pick your poison filesystem unless you're letting SUSE or Ubuntu manage it for you. That's pretty much true for all advanced setups.

[useless]

My only problem with BTRFS is that incompatibilities between it and software like GRUB occur from time to time and I've been hit by them. I didn't have a good time between Linux 4.0 and 5.0 with BTRFS /boot due to using rolling distributions. FWIW, I can say that about ZFS. IMHO, especially when rolling, they're both a pick your poison filesystem unless you're letting SUSE or Ubuntu manage it for you. That's pretty much true for all advanced setups.

Yeah. openSUSE applies a fair amount of patches on top of grub for it to work seamlessly with the default setup.

[digitalsin]

XFS is "ok for desktop" for a nearly 30 year-old filesystem. One of the cool features is massively parallel operations - perhaps that is why it is so popular on "enterprise" O.S. I feel btrfs is better in number of ways from my personal experience, and so I use it for that - personal reasons

[flower]

you can't have stable non-checksummimg fs on bitrotting drive

You can use dm-integrity together with any raid level >0 to defend against bitrot.
You will get correct data with any fs, but you need to scrub to write it back.

[uid313]

did it work well for firefox?

Yes, it did, which is why Rust is seeing so much adoption.

well, you are correct with first sentence, you don't know. btrfs is reliable, but some of its features are not ready yet(raid5/6). so don't use them, that's all, just as you don't use 100% of unimplemented features of your imaginary rust filesystem

Is the rest of Btrfs stable?
I've heard so much problems about Btrfs, I never heard so many complaints about any other file system.

[Rallos Zek]

Having a file system that is good. That is reliable, trusted, solid and has features. Btrfs has lots of cool features, but you can't trust it with your data. Ext4 and XFS are stable but they lack features. With Rust maybe we can have a file system that is reliable, but I don't know, maybe Btrfs isn't unreliable because of the language, maybe it has other types of bugs and things like poor design.

Rust does not magically make a filesystem or a system driver more robust, stable or have less bugs. The Rust Cargo Cult needs culling.