Originally posted by avis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
An Initial Benchmark Of Bcachefs vs. Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS On Linux 6.11
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by waxhead View Post
So yes, btrfs is not perfect at all and I strongly dislike some of the choices that are made. That being said I think BTRFS is the best filesystem out there and nothing else comes close except maybe bcachefs in some years. For me BTRFS have proven to be rock solid and have never failed except once when I tested a non-LST kernel on my desktop which had a know and nasty bug. I was still able to recover all the files I cared about so for me BTRFS has proven to be a reliable filesystem where I can know when something is wrong (and in many cases see the error rate increasing before storage devices fail).
Originally posted by waxhead View PostIf bcachefs is better designed than btrfs is something that remains to be seen. It is claimed to be and It perfectly well might be , but we don't know until it has more field testing which hopefully will come now that it is part of the kernel. What I am slightly concerned about is that I have noticed that when I see something serious with BTRFS then LVM, MD and more often than not bcache (not bcachefs) seems to be nvolved.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by avis View Post
I've never used CoW filesystems but no other "standard/classic" FS can survive [system] crashes. And I'm not entirely sure CoW filesystems are immune to crashes either.
Ontop of this there are multiple redundancy levels, its definitely much harder to corrupt a ZFS filesystem then ext4 (I have managed to break ext4 filesystems many times, usually due to hard crashes).
Comment
-
Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
ZFS is far superior to btrfs in every way aside from doing disk based rather than block based redundancy (however you can argue that ZFS due to being better thought out actually acheives its slated design goals
http://www.dirtcellar.net
Comment
-
Originally posted by waxhead View Post
I don't think ZFS is superior. BTRFS management interface is simpler and cleaner in many ways
Originally posted by waxhead View Postand it handles differently sized storage devices better imho.
Originally posted by waxhead View PostAs for fault tolerance ZFS is not fool proof either. There are stories around even for ZFS. No matter what filesystem you use it's not a substitute for backups.
I mean of course I am of course excluding cases where you destroy all of the hard drives at once, but short of that there is very little you can do to break a zfs filesystem.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by avis View Post
You are the 20th person in this thread to confuse hardware/OS failure with FS failure.
No, files on ext4 or NTFS or most other FS'es don't get corrupted for no reason. As for whether your FS does checksuming, that's up to it. Personally, I have all my files checksummed manually (md5sum * > md5.sum) because I don't trust any FS. And I don't trust RAID either because it's way too expensive for me. RAID1 is basically useless because there are situations when it can't help, so if you're using it and believing you're safe against HW failures, I've got bad news for you.
It's not the job of a file system to maintain the integrity of the stored data itself. I mean, it would be great to have such an FS, but imagine the overhead of calculating checksums and then storing some extra data (how much exactly?) to recover bit flips or even complete bad sectors.
He who does nothing, spoils nothing. Sure.
Comment
Comment