Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs Sends In Fixes For Linux 6.10 & Restores "norecovery" Mount Option

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

  • Samara
    replied
    Originally posted by NekkoDroid View Post

    The problem with this is the kernels "we don't break userspace" promise. And reading millions of lines of logs to check for a deprecation warning is just not realistic.

    And the thing they changed apparently is effectivly just renaming the option under a different name, while the other filesystems use the old name for the same feature.
    Yes, Lennart definitely remembers this talk this Linus about breaking userspace: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn-SGblUhi4

    Leave a comment:


  • theriddick
    replied
    1000 people say the volcano never gave them any issues. 100 people said it burnt their houses down. Does that mean the volcano is harmless and overall stable?

    I'm sure all other partition formats have given people issues also but the recovery success is terrible on btrfs due to lack of decent recovery tools and boottime recovery.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by theriddick View Post

    Your experience is irrelevant. You say btrfs was bad in past but its never given you a issue... ok

    You must understand that we don't all use your experience to measure if BTRFS recovery is good or bad right?
    Search the world of forums a bit and you'll see MANY people have had big issues with btrfs.

    Unless it has mount-time non-failing auto-recovery, its useless especially for a boot format!
    Is that what you declared to be contradictory? That BTRFS was unstable in it's first release and me not having had any issues are not contradictory, it simply means that I didn't start to use BTRFS until it was marked as stable (why would I). Was that really so hard to understand?

    My experience is exactly as valid as yours and it was written in direct response to yours, aka you claimed to have had a partition completely unrecoverable after a system freeze to which I countered that I suffered hundreds of consecutive such freezes due to a faulty PSU and had zero issues, didn't even have to perform recovery.

    Now you have shifted goalposts to talk about mount-time autorecovery (which btrfs have if the initramfs is setup to do so, aka this is a configuration issue).

    And yes the Internet is full of people having issues, millions claim to have issues with chem trails, vaccinations and also believe in a flat earth. Aka that is not a metric. We don't even know how many of those posts are suffering from HW issues (so completely unrelated to the filesystem in question) or how other fs:s would handle their exact crash (since we don't have access to a time machine).

    You must understand that we don't all use your experience to measure if BTRFS recovery is good or bad right?
    I never once made such a claim, why with the straw manning? You do understand though that this is a discussion forum right? Where you have, you know, discussions? Sounds like you are upset that you aren't on the "we all agree with you all the time" forum. But that is a you issue, not a me issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • theriddick
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    can you expand and explain? Because they are exactly my own actual experience.
    Your experience is irrelevant. You say btrfs was bad in past but its never given you a issue... ok

    You must understand that we don't all use your experience to measure if BTRFS recovery is good or bad right?
    Search the world of forums a bit and you'll see MANY people have had big issues with btrfs.

    Unless it has mount-time non-failing auto-recovery, its useless especially for a boot format!

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by theriddick View Post

    Because your comments are contradictory and blatantly false.
    can you expand and explain? Because they are exactly my own actual experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • theriddick
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

    well you say "many years ago" and there where plenty of time in the early days of btrfs where it wasn't production ready so it highly depends on which kernel version you ran back then.



    ​Why so hostile just because my experience doesn't match yours? I have never once stated that your experience wasn't true.
    Because your comments are contradictory and blatantly false.

    Leave a comment:


  • direc85
    replied
    TBF since btrfs had provided norecovery for a long time, and other filesystems already supported norecovery, btrfs shouldn't have dropped it in the first place. Good to see it back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Valmar33
    replied
    [QUOTE=F.Ultra;n1467052]
    well you say "many years ago" and there where plenty of time in the early days of btrfs where it wasn't production ready so it highly depends on which kernel version you ran back then.
    /QUOTE]

    This was during a time btrfs was considered production ready. It was no long considered stable and ready for widespread usage. I jumped on-board enthusiastically.

    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
    ​Why so hostile just because my experience doesn't match yours? I have never once stated that your experience wasn't true.
    I was just sharing my experience which runs counter to yours. I just find your statements about btrfs to be quite untrue for many who've suffered unrecoverable corruption. I know, because I went through too many cases of it. btrfs gave me corruption that couldn't be fixed, and was only made worse by trying to fsck it. btrfs's fsck is so unreliable that it can permanently corrupt your data. Which is why they recommended never using the repair option, and suggest a bunch of other options instead. Seems like they can't even fix their fsck because of how broken it is.

    Meanwhile, bcachefs, even before being upstreamed, never ate my data. bcachefs's fsck actually does what fsck should do ~ and it doesn't run the risk of trashing your filesystem. At worst, it might get stuck. I have no choice but to uncleanly shut the filesystem down. But the filesystem never got trashed. Yes, fsck occasionally didn't work, but my data was still recoverable by downgrading to an earlier commit. This is true even now. I was pretty cautious about moving to bcachefs, because of my experiences with btrfs.

    Another user had put a test server through stress testing, simulating sudden power outages to test the filesystem's resilience, and they never lost data. So that made me trusting enough to try it out on my end. And sure enough, power outages have never trashed the filesystem. Not even simulated ones, out of curiosity.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    Originally posted by Valmar33 View Post

    Funny. Using btrfs from many years ago, before I had a UPS... a power outage would often cause my root partition to be completely trashed. Recovery was impossible, and indeed, trying to fsck only made things worse. Eventually switched back to ext4 after consistent problems, after giving btrfs enough goes. ext4 has never failed to recover from sudden outages for me. Ever.

    Now, for comparison, bcachefs has always managed to recover from outages for me ~ even when fsck was broken for some reason, as I was and still am using bcachefs Git master, I have never lost data. When the fsck issues were fixed, my data was still there, in its entirety. Even in the earlier days of bcachefs.

    More than I can ever say for my time with btrfs, which gave me more pain than was worth. When I finally divorced btrfs, it was with bitterness. Never trusted it again.
    well you say "many years ago" and there where plenty of time in the early days of btrfs where it wasn't production ready so it highly depends on which kernel version you ran back then.

    Originally posted by theriddick View Post

    I think it was 6.8 at the time, but I've had it happen in the past on different kernel versions. It's just btrfs inability to reliably recover partitions that have data corruption which is common when a system hard locks. This is on a SSD+NVMe btw.

    F.Ultra just going to ignore your dribble here after. A system lockup is a system lockup, and this is not a isolated incident that only IV'E experienced when using BTRFS.
    ​Why so hostile just because my experience doesn't match yours? I have never once stated that your experience wasn't true.

    Leave a comment:


  • theriddick
    replied
    Originally posted by aviallon View Post

    It may be too late, but have you tried btrfs restore? Once, I had a damaged hard drive, and the only tool able to recover anything was btrfs restore.
    It is a bit unfriendly to use though.
    Oh yes, I tried everything. There was one command that let me temp mount it but no files appeared and the repair methods still failed on it.

    If you do a deep search on the internet you will see many people with btrfs partition failure issues. Some get lucky and can fix them, but not all.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X