|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs

SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs

Posted Aug 25, 2017 11:34 UTC (Fri) by walex (guest, #69836)
In reply to: SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs by SEJeff
Parent article: SUSE reaffirms support for Btrfs

Btrfs in its "just a filesystem" subset, with snapshots and checksums, works pretty well and is reliable, and that's that SUSE uses it for.
Compression used to be quite buggy until recently, and defrag and dedupe seem to work mostly but they have very unpleasant (and unavoidable) corner cases.
"Multidevice" support I think was fundamentally misdesigned as evidenced by a long history of bugs and very odd and common "corner cases", and I suspect it will never be properly fixed short of rewriting. The RAID10 mode is the best of the bunch.
My impression is that the Btrfs authors though that a Microsoft-like marketing strategy, that is lots of feature, even if buggy, was the best approach. I suspect that works for applications, but not for critical bits of infrastructure.

The author of 'bcachefs' has written his impression in a previous comment on LWN.net:

https://lwn.net/Articles/656004/>

> How does bcachefs beat btrfs?
> Posted Aug 28, 2015 16:48 UTC (Fri) by koverstreet (subscriber, #4296) [Link]
> "large log structured b+ tree nodes over regular b+ tree nodes" - that's
> a large part of it. But really it mostly comes from working slowly, focusing
> on the design of the lower layers, keeping things clean and simple. It's been
> over 5 years to get to this point.
> Btrfs tried to do too much (in LOC) too quickly; they've got way too much
> code now and too many bad design decisions are baked in.


to post comments


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds