You're viewing a single thread.
What's wrong with btrfs?
This is a rather old form and in its early days btrfs was not very stable.
People don't know how CoW FSes work 🤷.
My only gripe with btrfs is that I've had systems come down from a single drive failure in raid quite "often" when compared to other FS.
ZFS is a ram hog but I always could do a live resilvering without downtime.
btrfs's RAID features are not production-ready, and at this point I doubt they ever will be. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs#Implemented_but_not_recommended_for_production_use
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Btrfs
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Btrfs-Warning-RAID5-RAID6
ZFS is definitely more robust.
It is true for raid 5 & 6. Raid 0, 1, and 10 are supposed to be production ready. I use raid 10 only with btrfs, anything else and I use zfs or mdadm.
I wouldn't go above two disks
You have to avoid the raid types is lists as not ready. Looks like facebook uses btrfs without issues
Raid 1 is stable. The problem is that btrfs has performance issues with resilvering a large amount of data. That isn't something that can be fixed as it is a design flaw.
Maybe bcachfs will be production ready at some point
Don't forget upstream: https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Status.html
Nothing these days
I don’t think I’d call it anything wrong, but the subvolumes definitely do make it different for installation purposes so that following ext4 instructions for bootloader configs or kernel arguments could put you on the wrong path
performance
opening programs was noticeably slower for me
benchmarks confirm this, and I think this is an aspect not discussed often enough
I benchmarked it and it blew XFS out of the water