I've actually followed btrfs for a couple of years. Wondering about when it would become mature enough for everyday use. Because it sure sounds exciting.
SSDs probably died coz of 'btrfs-transacti' process constantly writes something (about 100mb/day, checked with LBA written SMART data on samsung SSD) even in idle. OS fedora 21 with idling cassandra. I was optimized systemd, disabling autodefrag etc, helps only switching to ext4 (about 30mb/day).
I'm not running anything mission-critical, but I really wanted to use btrfs. I don't need RAID 5 or 6, but even so I'm scared of losses. Weary of using ZFS on Linux too, though. Illumos/Open Indiana sound like good options, but idk if I have time to learn the quirks of BSD forking. I'll just stick to EXT3&4, I guess.
Curious that he goes through a laundry list of kernel-version-specific bugs (defag, rebalance, corruption), and half baked features (fsck --repair, encryption, dedup, multi-volume support) but then claims that it's ZFS that's risky to use.
RonJohn63 ZFS is definitely more mature, but it's more risky to use for patent and legal issues. And more simply all lawyers I've talked to say that you cannot legally redistribute a linux kernel with ZFS built in due to incompatibility between the GPL (linux) and the CDDL (ZFS). You can legally build it and use it at home or work, but you can't redistribute it.
I reject the notion that I should expect a comical response having asked a technical question on a technical video. This is not a video about cats playing guitars or anything silly like that.
Lol dude you do know this is the internet right? The context of a video doesn't make a difference as to who is going to answer the question or how they are going to answer it. You may be able to expect a certain amount of professionalism in certain social circles, but never expect anything from the internet haha
I voted up this video for the content sake. But do like Google does? I'm sorry. Plus, I've no interest in what Oracle does either. I dislike that company for various reasons. Anyway, I use ZFS from OpenSolaris derivatives. I don't use Oracle Solaris at all. I'm very happy with ZFS on couple of Servers, also run two 200+ TB NAS Severs to cater various requirements of couple of hundred users spanning in three nations. I'm considering to build a large 500+ TB NAS Server using ZoL to work along with the above machines. This will take some months time as pilot program is underway to test scalability etc. I don't have any plans to axe ZFS until 2020 or so.
Yeah, so I'm a bout halfway in, going to stop now. This video should be titled "Why you should NOT consider using btrfs". Well, you convinced me not to try it :p
hahahahahahahahaha One thing I can say... A good hardware array It's way more stable than btrfs mult-disk trash of feature... just changed to mdadm because at least I have never lose data before on it. Now after two complete disk array being rendered unmountable(with all the recovery options), and to make things better, unrecoverable on btrfs, all the sudden, in less than two years, with different devices, and different machines, all of them working perfectly from hardware side, I gave up on this fucking peace of shit. I don't need to say that I was using the suposed best, latest and stable versions of the kernel and btrfs-progs on arch linux.. Don't use pulseaudio of FS's... projects like these that make linux comunity looks like moroons. 2017, the support of facebook and google's developers, and this is a shitty fs yet, takes less than 10 minutes to find hundreds of problems like this on safe features and versions, serious bugs on compression, auto-defrag, multidevice management, caching errors, not even to talk about raid5/6 that are ready as a we are to an asteroid deflection. This fs is a joke, and not ba light years faar usable, unless you're just playing hide and obliterate with your useless data.
![SL[AUO]B: Kernel memory allocator design and philosophy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h0VMLXavx30/mqdefault.jpg)
I've actually followed btrfs for a couple of years. Wondering about when it would become mature enough for everyday use. Because it sure sounds exciting.
ZFS is now on the Ubuntu 16.04 LTS kernel
G392753gdghsn0xms pop
btrfs maintenance is automatic in opensuse tumbleweed and leap
SSDs probably died coz of 'btrfs-transacti' process constantly writes something (about 100mb/day, checked with LBA written SMART data on samsung SSD) even in idle. OS fedora 21 with idling cassandra. I was optimized systemd, disabling autodefrag etc, helps only switching to ext4 (about 30mb/day).
I'm not running anything mission-critical, but I really wanted to use btrfs. I don't need RAID 5 or 6, but even so I'm scared of losses. Weary of using ZFS on Linux too, though. Illumos/Open Indiana sound like good options, but idk if I have time to learn the quirks of BSD forking. I'll just stick to EXT3&4, I guess.
I'm using btrfs on a bad hdd, it survived 1 month and counting and running as a charm, compared to xfs, ext4 and reiserfs which i had data loss.
Curious that he goes through a laundry list of kernel-version-specific bugs (defag, rebalance, corruption), and half baked features (fsck --repair, encryption, dedup, multi-volume support) but then claims that it's ZFS that's risky to use.
When did he say taht ZFS was risky? I heard him say that it was more mature. (But I did stop listening at 22:03.)
RonJohn63 ZFS is definitely more mature, but it's more risky to use for patent and legal issues.
And more simply all lawyers I've talked to say that you cannot legally redistribute a linux kernel with ZFS built in due to incompatibility between the GPL (linux) and the CDDL (ZFS).
You can legally build it and use it at home or work, but you can't redistribute it.
What lawyers have said that publicly? I'm not sure who would have standing to sue.
Derek Morr /I'm not sure who would have standing to sue./
Oracle would. They own the copyright on ZFS.
I've seen claims by former Sun engineers that Oracle probably wouldn't have standing. Either way, it should really be tested in court at some point.
Oracle can't change the licensing due to some hidden patent licensing owed to some random company out there.
Not using ZFS in any year? come on guys.
Why would anyone choose this over ZFS?
+Frank Barcenas It's Linux, it's freedom, everything has advantages and disadvantages, everyone has specific needs.
+SlicK I was expecting a technical answer, not philosophical one. Really, I still do not understand what advantages BTRFS has over ZFS.
Unless you put "I'd like a technical answer to this question." in your comment, I don't think you can expect anything for a response.
I reject the notion that I should expect a comical response having asked a technical question on a technical video. This is not a video about cats playing guitars or anything silly like that.
Lol dude you do know this is the internet right? The context of a video doesn't make a difference as to who is going to answer the question or how they are going to answer it. You may be able to expect a certain amount of professionalism in certain social circles, but never expect anything from the internet haha
try to avoid making purposefully annoying noises, you can just say it was a bad noise we will believe you
I voted up this video for the content sake. But do like Google does? I'm sorry. Plus, I've no interest in what Oracle does either. I dislike that company for various reasons. Anyway, I use ZFS from OpenSolaris derivatives. I don't use Oracle Solaris at all.
I'm very happy with ZFS on couple of Servers, also run two 200+ TB NAS Severs to cater various requirements of couple of hundred users spanning in three nations.
I'm considering to build a large 500+ TB NAS Server using ZoL to work along with the above machines. This will take some months time as pilot program is underway to test scalability etc. I don't have any plans to axe ZFS until 2020 or so.
Btrfs sounds awful! Maybe talk about it when it is out of Alpha.
BTRFS is crap, it can't even boot up properly in degraded status.
There's so many caveats and restrictions and you call that crap stable ?
That's cute. Let me know when you're scrambling after btrfs eats your data, cause it did mine.
Yeah, so I'm a bout halfway in, going to stop now. This video should be titled "Why you should NOT consider using btrfs". Well, you convinced me not to try it :p
I personally would not trust software raid.
hahahahahahahahaha One thing I can say... A good hardware array It's way more stable than btrfs mult-disk trash of feature...
just changed to mdadm because at least I have never lose data before on it. Now after two complete disk array being rendered unmountable(with all the recovery options), and to make things better, unrecoverable on btrfs, all the sudden, in less than two years, with different devices, and different machines, all of them working perfectly from hardware side, I gave up on this fucking peace of shit. I don't need to say that I was using the suposed best, latest and stable versions of the kernel and btrfs-progs on arch linux..
Don't use pulseaudio of FS's... projects like these that make linux comunity looks like moroons.
2017, the support of facebook and google's developers, and this is a shitty fs yet, takes less than 10 minutes to find hundreds of problems like this on safe features and versions, serious bugs on compression, auto-defrag, multidevice management, caching errors, not even to talk about raid5/6 that are ready as a we are to an asteroid deflection. This fs is a joke, and not ba light years faar usable, unless you're just playing hide and obliterate with your useless data.