SUSE Remains Committed To The Btrfs File-System

[JeansenVaars]

Just from the top of my head(some may have changed recently, is not like I follow BTRFS to the day):

I want to be you.

[starshipeleven]

This is why I chose btrfs years back.

Same.

[starshipeleven]

Why would anyone want RAID in the filesystem to start with?

Having RAID and volumes at the filesystem layer makes its operation and mainteneance much more efficient.

Case in point: if I need to rebuild a RAID, a ZFS/btrfs system will know already what data isn't duplicated anymore and needs to be moved/copied over as it's written in its filesystem metadata, it won't run a full array re-scan like block-level systems do (hardware raid or mdadm). Which cuts rebuild times by A LOT.

[Alliancemd]

I am a bit undecided about BTRFS: a few years back I lost all my data with BTRFS(the first time I had a forced shutdown of the laptop) - something that Never happened to me with ext4.
At the same time, I use it exclusively for my USB sticks(not enough space? No problem "mount -o remount,compress=lzo" and done) and also, I cannot resist using BTRFS for the system partition, because of `snapper`(snapshots on every package update and things like this)...

[jrch2k8]

I am a bit undecided about BTRFS: a few years back I lost all my data with BTRFS(the first time I had a forced shutdown of the laptop) - something that Never happened to me with ext4.
At the same time, I use it exclusively for my USB sticks(not enough space? No problem "mount -o remount,compress=lzo" and done) and also, I cannot resist using BTRFS for the system partition, because of `snapper`(snapshots on every package update and things like this)...

As long as you are careful and have a recent kernel I guess you will be fine with BTRFS on SUSE as long you Max at RAID1 and don't force poweroffs

[Zucca]

a few years back I lost all my data with BTRFS(the first time I had a forced shutdown of the laptop) - something that Never happened to me with ext4.

I also had to make a forced shutdown because systemd bacame zombie process and nothing worked anymore. After boot I scubbed the btrfs-raid1 pool the errors were corrected. This happened around five times (until I gave up letting systemd handle few things). Every time errors were corrected. But also note that I have 6-disk btrfs-raid1 pool.
So yes. I'm pretty happy with btrfs.

[jrch2k8]

I also had to make a forced shutdown because systemd bacame zombie process and nothing worked anymore. After boot I scubbed the btrfs-raid1 pool the errors were corrected. This happened around five times (until I gave up letting systemd handle few things). Every time errors were corrected. But also note that I have 6-disk btrfs-raid1 pool.
So yes. I'm pretty happy with btrfs.

mmm, i heard of this but didn't think was accurate. would be interesting if you could check systemd on ext4 or xfs in your machine(to discard is not a coincidence or hardware issues) because i have the exact opposite of this with ZFS and XFS(my go to boot FS before ZFS) systemd never have failed on me, not even journald(never ever ever gets corrupted) and in some servers i have up 200 on demand instances(nspawn) writing to the main systemd journald and even after violent power failures the journal is pristine and so far systemd never "ghosted" on me either

[Delgarde]

Why would anyone want RAID in the filesystem to start with? We have LVM2 for that, ... Also keeps the FS code lean and clean.
Why everything needs to be overcomplicated without proper abstraction is beyond my …

Because "proper abstraction" isn't always the best answer. Separating everything out into cleanly defined layers makes for better code, but it has a cost - everything is responsible for just its own area of responsibility, and nobody has a big-picture view. If you merge some of the layers - erasing the division between volume management and filesystem - you get more complexity, but you also get the ability to optimise in ways that can't occur when responsibilities are divided.

[andyprough]

Whenever this issue comes up, I see comments where users are expecting their filesystem and/or RAID to negate the need for backups. It's a bit shocking to see that even highly skilled technical people have this aversion to properly backing up their data.

[jrch2k8]

Whenever this issue comes up, I see comments where users are expecting their filesystem and/or RAID to negate the need for backups. It's a bit shocking to see that even highly skilled technical people have this aversion to properly backing up their data.

RAID != BACKUP, we see it this way.

Great RAID + checksum system FS or HW == great fault tolerance and no bitrot
Great Backup plan SW or Methodolgy == Safe Data
Both togheter = Sleep at night like a baby