SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs

Posted Aug 24, 2017 22:25 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953)
In reply to: SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs by drag
Parent article: SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs

>Evidence is stacking up that BTRFS is broken unless they are willing to make significant changes to the on-disk format, which would essentially necessitate a 'btrfsv2' since that is a dramatic thing.

Do you have backup for this statement, I would be very interested in reading it. I've been using btrfs on a backup server for about 2 years and have had no issues.

SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs

Posted Aug 25, 2017 1:03 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Nothing worth posting. I don't know file system internals. Watched videos and read stuff from ZFS devs and whatnot. If their opinion is complete BS then I woudn't be able to tell the difference as long as it sounds good.

I, too, have been using Btrfs for a while. I've used it on different systems and have had data being eaten and volumes filling up unexpectedly and such things that commonly affect btrfs users. I like it a lot due to it's online compression support and such things.

I have grown from being optimistic to cautiously hopeful to 'lets see what other options are out there'.

SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs

Posted Aug 26, 2017 10:46 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

It is STILL a well known bug that running snapshots on a full disk (which many people do because things like du don't return sensible usage stats) will corrupt a filesystem beyond repair.

Higher-level raid (in other words anything above 0 or 1) is still very experimental.

I think the rebalancing problem has been fixed (which would iirc cause a system to apparently hang and in the past also trashed file-systems).

Btrfs is perfectly safe IF you stay within its known limits, ie don't use higher raid, and don't fill the disk up ...

Cheers,
Wol