I was hoping for a more knowledgeable discussion than just "Btrfs is new so I don't trust it." Btrfs is a more sophisticated filesystem. It's a copy on write filesystem so it has the potential to be a whole lot more performant than Ext4 in certain situations. Say you make a backup copy of a file before editing it. EXT4 will copy the entire file. Btrfs will just copy the file metadata and share the same data blocks, a very quick operation that also saves space on your filesystem. Then, when you edit the file and save your changes it will just create new data blocks with the updates and keep sharing the rest of the data blocks that it still has in common with the backup. Btrfs uses that technique not only on files, but on entire subvolumes, allowing you to quickly take snapshots of the state of your filesystem before initiating system updates. Therefore, if you get an update you don't like you can easily restore the system to the exact state it was in before the updates took place. And you won't have to copy large amounts of data to do it. Btrfs also allows filesystems and files even larger than the Linux kernel can currently support. It's designed to be the next generation filesystem. I've only scratched the surface of its features, but these are features that cannot be ignored by anyone knowledgeable about it.
That will be great, once it happens; as it is , folks using large RAID 5 and 6 setups are suffering data corruption and loss with BTRFS, which is why it is not recommended for those who can't afford/risk data loss....
BTRFS might work well on a large NAS with many storage devices. Haven't used BTRFS the way it was designed to be used. If you have lots and lots of storage devices all using btrfs mirroring, then perhaps btrfs would be suitable if fault tollerance and data protection are prioritized. HOWEVER I can say don't EVER use BTRFS by itself on a single root partition ! You will loose data if ANYTHING happens to the server. We use Oracle Linux 7 as our base Virtual Machine image OS. OL7 uses btrfs by default when installing the OS. We have had nothing but head aches dealing with constant data loss and disk corruption from btrfs. Our data center is not stable, with periodic SAN faults, occassional power outages etc etc. Sometimes we have to kill a running VM because the middleware software we run will not "behave" nicely and we have to kill the VM to regain control. Any one of these events usually lead to btrfs failures.
Now, wasn't that an awful lot of chatter to get to the opinion "Btrfs hasn't been around long enough for use in business critical applications"? The performance penalty can, on suitable DS's, be mitigated (over-mitigated..?) by the use of an SSD cache. I believe that deserves mention in context.
another graphic designer here, noticed it was false as well due to so many appealing shades for the book color, notably the teal/mint color drew my eye as I was watching, no one has that many attractive looking old book covers in matching and complementary shades LOL
as someone with an interest in photorealistic 3d I noticed because the shading doesn't match with the room and seems far too flat and the lack of perspective deformation on the books and the bookshelf
Some research on the best file system for SSDs, (which is the only type of drive I have) indicates that BTRFS is a better choice than the other options presented to me.
I have my data-- ALL OFIT-- on a 2T drive totally separate from EITHER of my systems (I usually run 2- 3 different os on my computer for variety).. and I have 2 external backups of my data. IF a system goes down- when I CAN- I use Timeshift.. WHAT ADVANTAGE would it be to ME to use BTRFS over EXT4??? IF it is- HOW do I convert my 2T drives with all the data to BRTFS?
Perhaps you should make a video about BTFS unreliability, i have just had a btrfs volume to crash after a powerfailure, the disks was just fine but the volume crashed not degraded. Contacted synology support that after 3 days couldnt fix it, they just said to recreate the volume and restore a backup. Thats what i did. But who can ever trust btrfs after that? new volume is ext4 needless to say.
That's a fringe case. BTRFS has a number of fail-safes specifically aimed towards improving reliability, especially in the case of power failures. That's why it's so frequently used on servers. Nevertheless, I'm sorry to hear about your data loss.
Oh no. I thought I had my choices narrowed down to Synology (maybe Asustor) because of Btrfs. But you are making me think it over and now QNAP might be back in play. Is Btrfs something you would recomend for photographers / video editors planning on also using docker containers and a SQL databases (MySQL and PostgreSQL)?
Now a while ago, this was a few years now. Jeff (Linux) Turner had a computer with a normal Hard Drive, and he used a desktop Linux distro, not sure which one, and it was on EXT4. He put it on again, reformated and installed the same one with BTRFS (Butter FS) and he said and showed his computer was much faster. He did a cold boot, and BTRFS was much faster. Though, that was that specific system, not a NAS.
Maybe it is, but it too has it's downsides - like compatibility and ease of use. I've deployed a few Linux systems on ZFS and after wa few years of operation I see that all it's awesomness comes at a cost, and I want to explore and see if maybe Btrfs isn't a better choice in some setups.
Btrfs suffered a bit from being overhyped before it was ready but inevitably it will dominate the home and small business NAS and server markets just because of the hardware cost of ZFS and being very close in capability. Enterprise users will choose ZFS for some years, being typically cautious considering most are still on hardware RAID more than a decade after ZFS went mainstream.
I'm wondering why my brand new Synology DS218+ decided to format my 2-disk RAID1 array as EXT3 instead of BTRFS. Submitted a tech support request to find out, but also hope this video explains why.
Hello, thanks for the video. I am beginner in this field and have a naive question: I have a raid ext4 configuration. I understand that data are mirrored from one drive to the other. So isn't this already a system that prevents data corruption ? (I mean comparing the checksum of a given file on the two drives... is this test performed on ext4? ) ... thank you!
Why would you use ZFS in an enterprise setting? As far as I'm aware many enterprise applications are using hardware RAID, not software RAID where ZFS is useful.
ZFS can still communicate with (via multiple 16 port HBA adapters) up to 32-48 drives, etc...; the HW RAID is useful because of it's battery backup, but, as long as the system has redundant PSUs and UPS backup, RAID card battery backup is less important. With multiple stripedVDEVs, ZFS is fast, even if not quite as fast as a RAID 50 or 60 on a Dell or HP server with 10 GbE NICs... ZFS is more known as being 'fast enough' (when disk config is designed properly, ECC RAM is used as recommended, and given system is given a couple SSD cache drives), but , data integrity is prioritized above all else...!
Hardware RAID vendors dropped support for 520 byte drive sectors during the conversion to 4K or Advanced Format drives. Without the extra space hardware RAID cannot offer any bitrot protection. ZFS has also closed the write hole window with a battery backed SSD for the ZIL.
Btrfs humm false sense of security to say the least. Go to any nas forum and look at how many people lost their data. Ext4 has far more ways to recover. Then there is the fact that btrfs scatters data horribly. No defrag. Humm
Why has Fedora (or maybe it was Redhat chosen to abandon btrfs for their own update of xfs {or was it zfs?}. In fact xfs is pretty impressive on its own.)
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
I was hoping for a more knowledgeable discussion than just "Btrfs is new so I don't trust it." Btrfs is a more sophisticated filesystem. It's a copy on write filesystem so it has the potential to be a whole lot more performant than Ext4 in certain situations.
Say you make a backup copy of a file before editing it. EXT4 will copy the entire file. Btrfs will just copy the file metadata and share the same data blocks, a very quick operation that also saves space on your filesystem. Then, when you edit the file and save your changes it will just create new data blocks with the updates and keep sharing the rest of the data blocks that it still has in common with the backup.
Btrfs uses that technique not only on files, but on entire subvolumes, allowing you to quickly take snapshots of the state of your filesystem before initiating system updates. Therefore, if you get an update you don't like you can easily restore the system to the exact state it was in before the updates took place. And you won't have to copy large amounts of data to do it.
Btrfs also allows filesystems and files even larger than the Linux kernel can currently support. It's designed to be the next generation filesystem. I've only scratched the surface of its features, but these are features that cannot be ignored by anyone knowledgeable about it.
That will be great, once it happens; as it is , folks using large RAID 5 and 6 setups are suffering data corruption and loss with BTRFS, which is why it is not recommended for those who can't afford/risk data loss....
Btrfs only stores its snapshots on the system volume. Ext4 can store its snapshots on a separate volume.
@@darylnd ext4 doesn't have snapshot capability, you can only snapshot ext4 if it's on an LVM, for example running lvcreate --snapshot
@@manw3bttcks
You can use timeshift etc
If you know so much then, why are you here watching this video? 🤦♂️🤣
BTRFS might work well on a large NAS with many storage devices. Haven't used BTRFS the way it was designed to be used. If you have lots and lots of storage devices all using btrfs mirroring, then perhaps btrfs would be suitable if fault tollerance and data protection are prioritized.
HOWEVER I can say don't EVER use BTRFS by itself on a single root partition ! You will loose data if ANYTHING happens to the server. We use Oracle Linux 7 as our base Virtual Machine image OS. OL7 uses btrfs by default when installing the OS. We have had nothing but head aches dealing with constant data loss and disk corruption from btrfs. Our data center is not stable, with periodic SAN faults, occassional power outages etc etc. Sometimes we have to kill a running VM because the middleware software we run will not "behave" nicely and we have to kill the VM to regain control. Any one of these events usually lead to btrfs failures.
Now, wasn't that an awful lot of chatter to get to the opinion "Btrfs hasn't been around long enough for use in business critical applications"?
The performance penalty can, on suitable DS's, be mitigated (over-mitigated..?) by the use of an SSD cache. I believe that deserves mention in context.
I almost believed in the bookshelf wallpaper, until I spotted patterns. Sorry, I'm a graphic designer, I spot patterns.
Yes, the two blue books with 4 dark hashes are a quick give-away!
another graphic designer here, noticed it was false as well due to so many appealing shades for the book color, notably the teal/mint color drew my eye as I was watching, no one has that many attractive looking old book covers in matching and complementary shades LOL
I’m having trust issues after reading this comment
as someone with an interest in photorealistic 3d I noticed because the shading doesn't match with the room and seems far too flat and the lack of perspective deformation on the books and the bookshelf
Wonderfully explained. Thanks so much.
Some research on the best file system for SSDs, (which is the only type of drive I have) indicates that BTRFS is a better choice than the other options presented to me.
Source?
@@Lmao-ke9lq the source is trust me bro
I have my data-- ALL OFIT-- on a 2T drive totally separate from EITHER of my systems (I usually run 2- 3 different os on my computer for variety).. and I have 2 external backups of my data. IF a system goes down- when I CAN- I use Timeshift.. WHAT ADVANTAGE would it be to ME to use BTRFS over EXT4??? IF it is- HOW do I convert my 2T drives with all the data to BRTFS?
F2FS seems to have the best performance for SSDs. I use it for over 6 years without any issues.
Perhaps you should make a video about BTFS unreliability, i have just had a btrfs volume to crash after a powerfailure, the disks was just fine but the volume crashed not degraded. Contacted synology support that after 3 days couldnt fix it, they just said to recreate the volume and restore a backup. Thats what i did. But who can ever trust btrfs after that? new volume is ext4 needless to say.
That's a fringe case. BTRFS has a number of fail-safes specifically aimed towards improving reliability, especially in the case of power failures. That's why it's so frequently used on servers. Nevertheless, I'm sorry to hear about your data loss.
Experienced the same thing.
Oh no. I thought I had my choices narrowed down to Synology (maybe Asustor) because of Btrfs. But you are making me think it over and now QNAP might be back in play. Is Btrfs something you would recomend for photographers / video editors planning on also using docker containers and a SQL databases (MySQL and PostgreSQL)?
Now a while ago, this was a few years now. Jeff (Linux) Turner had a computer with a normal Hard Drive, and he used a desktop Linux distro, not sure which one, and it was on EXT4. He put it on again, reformated and installed the same one with BTRFS (Butter FS) and he said and showed his computer was much faster. He did a cold boot, and BTRFS was much faster. Though, that was that specific system, not a NAS.
Thanks mate, you are a f$%^ing legend for doing all these videos, just finished setting up my DS218 using all of you videos. Many thanks :)
ZFS is the way
Maybe it is, but it too has it's downsides - like compatibility and ease of use.
I've deployed a few Linux systems on ZFS and after wa few years of operation I see that all it's awesomness comes at a cost, and I want to explore and see if maybe Btrfs isn't a better choice in some setups.
Btrfs suffered a bit from being overhyped before it was ready but inevitably it will dominate the home and small business NAS and server markets just because of the hardware cost of ZFS and being very close in capability. Enterprise users will choose ZFS for some years, being typically cautious considering most are still on hardware RAID more than a decade after ZFS went mainstream.
RAID Z2+ and ZFS for the win..
DS920+ with 4x8 TB drives in raid 10. Mainly storing a library of bluray rips and music for dlna streaming and plex. What format is best?
I'm still none-the-wiser as to whether to use EXT4 or BTRFS on my NAS I'm going to get (12 bay 16Tb 192Tb)
Im glad I watched this video because I was going to convert my craptop to BTRFS but now that i see how demanding it actually is ill stick with ext4
I'm wondering why my brand new Synology DS218+ decided to format my 2-disk RAID1 array as EXT3 instead of BTRFS. Submitted a tech support request to find out, but also hope this video explains why.
Do you have any update BTRFS vs ZFS?
btrfs is only good with raid without raid ext4 gives more performance.
Which file system would you choose for a Plex server and home surveillance system on the DS718+ or DS918+ ?
so for database servers, we will be much better with ext4?
ZFS is the best
Hello, thanks for the video. I am beginner in this field and have a naive question: I have a raid ext4 configuration. I understand that data are mirrored from one drive to the other. So isn't this already a system that prevents data corruption ? (I mean comparing the checksum of a given file on the two drives... is this test performed on ext4? ) ... thank you!
Yes, but btrfs does it so in a logical way. It does not mean it is superior over the other file systems though, at least not for desktop use.
A person that isn't very computer literate btrfs is not for them, and for a desktop or laptop ext4 is what they should be using.
Why no FAT 16?
Why would you use ZFS in an enterprise setting? As far as I'm aware many enterprise applications are using hardware RAID, not software RAID where ZFS is useful.
ZFS can still communicate with (via multiple 16 port HBA adapters) up to 32-48 drives, etc...; the HW RAID is useful because of it's battery backup, but, as long as the system has redundant PSUs and UPS backup, RAID card battery backup is less important. With multiple stripedVDEVs, ZFS is fast, even if not quite as fast as a RAID 50 or 60 on a Dell or HP server with 10 GbE NICs... ZFS is more known as being 'fast enough' (when disk config is designed properly, ECC RAM is used as recommended, and given system is given a couple SSD cache drives), but , data integrity is prioritized above all else...!
Hardware RAID vendors dropped support for 520 byte drive sectors during the conversion to 4K or Advanced Format drives. Without the extra space hardware RAID cannot offer any bitrot protection. ZFS has also closed the write hole window with a battery backed SSD for the ZIL.
Btrfs humm false sense of security to say the least. Go to any nas forum and look at how many people lost their data. Ext4 has far more ways to recover. Then there is the fact that btrfs scatters data horribly. No defrag. Humm
Cheers for your POV PJ. What are your thoughts on ZFS vs EXT4?
Bad audio quality. Can't understand
BTRFS is not good for Virt at any scale, because of CoW.
Could you compare Btrfs with Reiserfs and HAMMER?
ReiserFS has been deprecated in practice, because it is now unsupported by its original author, who is now in prison for murder of his wife.
@@merbst Wut??
Bare metal file systems support rust.
The school of hand gestures *forgot to award you a diploma.*
사진이나 작은 영상은Ext4가 더 빠르다.
그런데 모니터가 구석기다.
헐 설마 책꽃이가 벽지인건가?
Why has Fedora (or maybe it was Redhat chosen to abandon btrfs for their own update of xfs {or was it zfs?}. In fact xfs is pretty impressive on its own.)
BTRFS still blows and is unstable/unreliable with RAID 5 and RAID 6.....
gosh man you are very talkative
Which filesystem for DS1618+ ? 4x4TB backup + docker
bad audio :(
Valid points, but I'd never take tips from a dude with a fake bookshelf. Only real books plz.
5:36
"Orientated?"