Btrfs In Linux 4.4 Has Many Improvements/Fixes

[darkbasic]

What about raid 5 write hole? This is what I would like to read in the changelog.

[zanny]

I'd be interested in the "btrfs is no longer 30% slower than every other FS for no real reason when writing new data / reading old data".

Its always a bummer to put btrfs on an ssd when you know you are instantly gimping the performance for checksumming, snapshots, cow, and compression.

[gigaplex]

What about raid 5 write hole? This is what I would like to read in the changelog.

The RAID write hole phenomenon is not specific to RAID 5.

[unixfan2001]

That is absolutely false sir. Poor programmers use that excuse often because they don't like to test or write documentation.

Your optimism is adorable.

I probably spend 80% of my development time documenting my software's interfaces and general architectural concepts (as well as UX. Which is very important to me).
Even with all the micromanagement and drive for perfection, I still regularly discover bugs.

[boxie]

Yeah. I'll be more excited when I read an article saying "Btrfs In Linux X.Y Has One Small RFE and No Fixes, Cut It's All Stable And Shit Now"

I have not experienced an issue with btrfs in the last year or so. that said, I am using it for a pretty standard use case with no fancy experimental features turned on.

[boxie]

Yes, but the question is can you trust a Btrfs filesystem with your data in the same way you trust ext4? Given the continued shaky state of ZFS on linux, I'm more than ready for someone to answer that question with a yes (but haven't heard it yet).

Yes
Use it and see what shakes out
I have not had any data loss at all on btrfs, been using it for more than a year

[justmy2cents]

That is absolutely false sir. Poor programmers use that excuse often because they don't like to test or write documentation.

and how do you guarantee tools like compiler version you used didn't have a bug? even helloworld is only bug free as much as your code goes. and trying to guarantee bug free code grows harder and harder with the problem or complexity you solve.

[Niarbeht]

That is absolutely false sir. Poor programmers use that excuse often because they don't like to test or write documentation.

HAHAHA

HAHA

HAHAHAHA

Tell us another one.

[liam]

Ext4 still gets bug fixes. It will NEVER happen. NO program that does ANYTHING meaningful, or complex enough to be valuable, will EVER be 100% bug free.

While you've given yourself a nice out with your phrasing, I'd counter with sel4.

[liam]

Yes, but the question is can you trust a Btrfs filesystem with your data in the same way you trust ext4? Given the continued shaky state of ZFS on linux, I'm more than ready for someone to answer that question with a yes (but haven't heard it yet).

I don't know about oracle's implementation, but freebsd has 231 zfs related bugs (https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/bu...ebsd-fs&v2=zfs).
Trust it at your peril!!!!

edit: thats vs 95 for ext4 (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist....ormat=specific), and 299 for btrfs (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist....ormat=specific).