Is this good?

...

Not as good as XFS.

ZFS's retarded stepchild

>tfw I studied B-Trees this semester so I'm tempted to convert my EXT4 partition to Btrfs just because I'll know how my filesystem works

Back to reality, from benchmarks I've been reading, you're better off with EXT4 or whatever you currently use for desktop usage.

Might as well use reiserfs if you love B trees so much. It won't destroy your data like btrfs would.

ZFS: Stable as fuck. Not very scalable speed. No new tricks. Pic related.
BTRFS: A little faulty, mind the gaps. ZSTD. Actually fucking native.
XFS: Jesus fuck it's already finished? It's spinning media!
F2FS: Muh read locking. Muh write reduction. Solid sequentials.

Filesystems are nice.

RHEL is getting rid of their support for it, while OpenPEPE made it the default.

just wanted to point that point out

yeah i've heard it has some similarities with ZFS

It will kill your wife, though

It's been getting better with every release. Even when comparing from a few months ago.

Really? that's good news.
I've seen some benchmarks saying it's really slow compared to just about everything else. don't know if that's changed lately.

it's dead already

JUST GET FUCKING RAID 5/6 STABLE

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

How do you pronounce Btrfs?

>btrfs
>better filesystem
>better FS

Cant you read you mongoloid?

this, it wouldn't even exist if ZFS wasn't CCDL

british file system

What does React OS use? Bet that's good.

I meant, how do you pronounce "btrfs".
bitriffs?
butraffs?

Nah, that's just a rumor.
It will make you kill your wife though.

Be Tee Err File system

Yes for regular use on the desktop or small server, but for a dedicated NAS use ZFS.

If u like using unstable products that can corrupt ur data, then it might be good for you. I prefer stable things.

>Be Tee Err File system
ty

Butter-eff-ess

How good is the Ubuntu Disks utility benchmarking wise?

The thing about btrfs is that if your data gets corrupted, it can be recovered, no matter how stable your filesystem is, if your HDD is dying your data will get corrupted no matter what, i currently have a ZFS array and its returning a lot of checksums errors on a disk every time i scrub telling me to get a new one, on a FS without checksums (or an mdadm array) my data would already be lost.

How do I into filesystems?
How do I into what's best for me regarding filesystems?

I have a ssd so I heard on the arch guide that btrfs was best for me.

>Be Tee Err File system
I wrote a jingle for it.
"If you want to make it meatier
You better make it BTR!"

bee tee are eff ess

haters BTRFO'd

Like "I can't believe it's not corruption" fs.

Try haikus next time, jingles are clearly not for you.

Right now you want Btrfs or ZFS, ZFS for data intensive task, Btrfs for lighter task.

It has some gimmicks, transparent compression, snapshotting and mirroring. The mirroring, called "raid1" lets you mirror data over disks of different sizes, it just stores two copies on different drives.
The worst that happened to me was that I had to hack the kernel to get to unfuck a "RAID1" setup where one of the drives had died, once a drive is gone it refuses to mount rw and not being mounted rw means you can't fix it.
I never converted an ext4 filesystem to btrfs, and don't think you should either. Most times I hear people having problems with btrfs are people who tried converting their ext4 setups.

>Butter-eff-ess
"If you want to make it better
You better make it Butter.
That's Butter! Effff Esssssss!"
(and you can have a snake mascot singing the song, emphasizing the essss bit. win!)

t. 2016

Why don't you read the manual before you ask?

No, never use it with a bad memory. It just fucks up. But you can enable a setting which checksums the data on ram too, before writing it down.

On zfs, not btrfs.

Never again.

What manual?
Also, wouldn't they be technical?

>ctrl f
>bcachefs
>not found
what is wrong with you guys

Pic related

The fucking wiki

Be-tree-ef-es

If you don't want to deal with the terminal, it's good. Just install btrfs-progs and use GParted.

It's a good filesystem for storing repetitive data like old versions of programs.

don't listen to retards, it's pronounced butter ef es

It's vaporware.

Not as good as HAMMER2

BRAAAAPTFFFFD

It's OK.

But don't use raid5 or 6 (raid1 is okay and equates to making two copies of all files across the volumes) - and most importantly, NEVER FILL THE FILESYSTEM - use quotas if you have to, but don't ever let it fill because it is still, even in current -stable kernel series, possible to for it to get into a state where it can't balance its way back out.

Unfortunately other than Facebook, Oracle are the main contributors, and Oracle don't give a fuck. Facebook have been doing great things for it lately.

Hi - I'd like to remove a volume from a zpool.

Oh, wait, you can't do that?

Not yet upstream :(

b.t.r.f.s

butterface

thx.

How do you pronounce ZFS?
Zeefs? Ziffs? Zhifs?

i pronounce it as "zed eff ess"

>le butter faggot
b-tree FS, everything else is normie tier

From what I've heard from random developers, while btrfs works, it is a bomb that can blow up any time. It is very poorly coded when compared to other filesystems and it's suffering from it's lack of design time when it was created.

I'm hoping bcachefs will become stable in this decade. It is btrfs but with xfs-tier code quality and design.

xfs might unironically turn the tables in the future too.

>xfs might unironically turn the tables
Redpill me on that one. I’ve used it, mostly due to being the default on RHEL/CentOS, but would appreciate your perspective.

xfs is a great filesystem in terms of robustness, latency and throughput but it doesn't have a lot of features when you compare it to btrfs or zfs. This is an early 90s filesystem after all.

However, a few versions ago the Linux kernel got some xfs patches that will enable developers to implement btrfs/zfs features like copy-on-write, snapshot, deduplication and other shit in the future.

>b-tier fs

Can XFS survive a few alt + sysrq + B combinations?