What filesystem are your data on and why is it not BTRFS?

What filesystem are your data on and why is it not BTRFS?

Other urls found in this thread:

jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-your-data/
louwrentius.com/please-use-zfs-with-ecc-memory.html
youtube.com/watch?v=52x4PSxbjUg
access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.4_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.4_Release_Notes-Deprecated_Functionality.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFS

Both are incomplete hacked together pieces of shit.

Real men use ZFS.

Ext4

>server grade filesystem
>on desktop grade hardware
Ishygddt

BTRFS more like buttfs LMFAOOOOOOOOO

Why shouldn't you?
I use ext4, as that's what I'm used to.

>BTRFS
More like BTFO

BRRAPFS

what is scrub of death

F A T T H I R T Y T W O
A
T

T
H
I
R
T
Y

T
W
O

jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-your-data/
According to this article, nothing that really needs to be worried about.

>Can't have files larger than 4GB
Lmaoing at your life.

Who here /ntfs/?

Because CSVFS_ReFS is clearly superior. Your meme filesystem doesn't scale across servers.

neither does yours

NTFS. Nothing wrong with it, it gets a bad rap these days cause people try to do shit that use it half ass like. Will your data get fucked up? Yeah, if your server/desktop loses power unexpectedly or if there is a hardware failure. But there is ways to counter both. A UPS will solve the "power failure" issue, allow a safe shutdown if main power fails. The hardware issue can be fixed via RAID and using a separate offline backup system. Will you still lose data? Yes, but not much, depending on how often you run a backup job. Nothing will prevent this, NTFS/REFS/ZFS,etc, it is all tied to hardware, hardware can die, Data dies with it, your only fail safe is your backup. Backups are the real important thing. Keeping the backup offline when not in use will extend the life of it and eliminate power failure issues that may happen.

>fragmentation

>fragm

I though WinFS was vaporware??

>entation

louwrentius.com/please-use-zfs-with-ecc-memory.html
and this article says you're fucked

the whole point of ZFS is to assure data integrity, but it can only do this with eec memory.
sure, you can say that other filesystems are as susceptible to memory bit-flips, but at least they have data recovery mechanisms, while ZFS does not and you have to assume the whole pool is lost.

Btrfs has no real advantage over ext4 on single disk file system, and Btrfs still has terrible, data losing bugs with its multi-disk spanning filesystem features.

NTFS on Winders
Ext4 on Linux

Don't fix what ain't broken.

>raid
enjoy your data loss
nothing to guarantee you dont lose data, just if a disk fails
and by the time you notice on some files you then have to hope your backups go far enough back and waste your time finding the version that isn't fucked

data loss bugs are only on raid 5/6
also ext4 doesn't have as good compression options nor subvolume support. CoW alone is worth it even on single disk setups

it is, CSVFS_ReFS is different

The problem with BTRFS is that it's been around for over half a decade now and it still has a reputation for being an unstable mess.

No one is going to trust their data to it.

Because bcachefs is way better

ntfs
yolo

It is Btrfs

btrfsfag checking in

The first article is accurate. The chance that the exact same bit is going to be flipped twice is next to nothing.

>using a filesystem from the last century

>Liking that disgusting pig of a woman
Kys and kill yourself

exFAT or nothing, baby.

XFS

Disgusting

jesus that shit is so fresh it's still green off the vine

after a few more years sure, once it's feature sets matures closer to btrfs but for now fuck that. Don't get me wrong, stability is more important than adding x or y feature but it's just too new for typical usage

Because a catastrophic hard disk failure won't save you no matter what file system you use.

>what is glusterfs

XFS

will move to bcachefs when its stable

NTFS, because it's completely cross-platform. Everything can read/write to NTFS. Windows, OS X, Linux.

Windows can't write to anything except NTFS and exFAT. And for some fucking retarded reason, there's no program that lets it write to better filesystems, it can only read.

XFS for data, especially video content which is 97% of the space usage of my NAS, and 99.9% of the actual accessing.

Btrfs is shit go away opensuse shill

Ext4 for muh games (some require it) and muh resizable partitions
Xfs or Zfs for large volumes and archiving
Ntfs for data you plan to loose
Exfat for thumb drives
Hfs+ for data you want to rot

I use ReiserFS.

>Ext4 for muh games (some require it)
>some require it
Oh?

youtube.com/watch?v=52x4PSxbjUg

>NTFS, because it's completely cross-platform.
lmao, tell that to many devices that write only to FAT

I will soon install GNU/Linux on my laptop, convince me on what filesystem to use.

Because it makes me think of BuTteRFaCE

>actually using brokenfs to store your data
>not patrician ZFS

nigga pls

root@ares zpool list media
NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE EXPANDSZ FRAG CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT
media 8.12T 6.35T 1.78T - 21% 78% 1.00x ONLINE /mnt

>Doing extra work because your filesystem is shit.

Wait i thought ext4 was the best for everything... Was i wrong?

access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.4_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7.4_Release_Notes-Deprecated_Functionality.html

"Red Hat will not be moving Btrfs to a fully supported feature and it will be removed in a future major release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux."

If EXT4 is enough for Google, it is certainly enough for me.

If Red Hat dropping support for a filesystem, even as a non-default option, doesn't convince you to drop Btrfs, I don't know what will. Even if the reasoning is that they are porting key features to xfs or moving towards development of their own new filesystem, I still wouldn't want to use btrfs as for something as critical as a filesystem

butterface, rather

I use BTRFS myself, mostly because I prefer a native CoW solution, but in modern terms, for a personal desktop scenario, ZFS isn't nearly as resource intensive as one should expect.

Don't care what gnome 3 tards wants to remove

ntfs
because windows doesn't support anything that isn't fat or ntfs

ext4 is a good just werks FS, most stuff discussed here are special scenario things with features to decrease the already low chance of corruption even more.

ZFS or GTFO

# / was on /dev/sda6 during installation
UUID=065ea5a6-4fce-4c9f-80ef-83f983cd0f36 / ext4 errors=remount-ro 0 1
# /boot was on /dev/sda1 during installation
UUID=3b50c7c8-3798-40a0-bee7-a46a979126aa /boot ext4 defaults 0 2
# swap was on /dev/sda5 during installation
UUID=57a1d7e4-69dd-4a89-a8fb-9f2aa6585281 none swap sw 0 0
/dev/md0 /storage ext4 noatime,rw 0 0

...

>btrfs
fucked up my data before
ext4 and xfs just work

>btrfs
i value my data thanks
yours is an even worse one

Nope, I lost some data on non raid btrfs 4.4

>Red Hat
WTF? I love BTRFS now.

Me too. Mostly because I originally set up my rig in 2002 and it's been fine so far. I've been writing a repacker/defragger for it, but not usable just yet.

I've been following the development of reiser4, and I think it's pretty well cooked overall. Unfortunate it didn't get the testing due to him pwning his bitch.

give praise to your hero

Quite.

Still, in recent years Reiser4 has had mirroring, striping and discard support added in. Iirc xattr support is coming quite soon. I think it deserves to be evaluated alongside btrfs and zfs..

Amen. Weekly patrol srubs to prevent bitrot.

Idiot.

you're a fucking retard then. If you lost data on btrfs using a single disk you more than likely would have on any filesystem, your drive is shit or you're a retard. The difference is btrfs noticed you lost data instead of assuming it's correct

>kernel forcefully remounting the partition read-only because the btrfs shit itself is somehow a hardware problem