Yes and BTRFS, unlike Ext4, will not go corrupt on the first power outage of slight hardware failure.
Comment on Best Filesystem for NAS?
morethanevil@lemmy.fedifriends.social 7 months ago
Ext4 does not have snapshots, COW or similar features. I am very happy with BTRFS. It just “works” out of the box.
TCB13@lemmy.world 7 months ago
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Wut? Ext4 is quite reliable.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
I’ve run btrfs for years and never had a issue. They one time my system wouldn’t boot it was due to a bad drive. I just swapped the drive and rebalanced and I was back up and running in less than a half an hour.
devfuuu@lemmy.world [bot] 7 months ago
Corruption on power only regularly happened to me on xfs a few years ago. That made me swear to never use that fs ever again. Never seen it on my ext4fs systems which are all I have for years in multiple computers.
Eideen@lemmy.world 7 months ago
This will also happen to Ext4. You just wouldn’t know it.
TCB13@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’m confused with your answer. BTRFS is good and reliable. Ext4 gets fucked at the slightest issue.
Eideen@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yes both BTRFS and Ext4 are vulnerable to unplanned powerloss when writes are in flight. Commonly knows as a write hole.
For BTRFS since it use of Copy of Write, it is more vulnerable. As metadata needs to be updated and more. Ext4 does not have CoW.
Cyber@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Never had an issue with EXT4.
Had a problem on a NAS where BTRFS was taking “too long” for systemD to check it, so just didn’t mount it… bit of config tweaking and all is well again.
I use EXT* and BTRFS where ever I can because I can manipulate it with standard tools (inc gparted).
I have 1 LVM system which was interesting, but I wouldn’t do it that way in the future (used to add drives on a media PC)
And as for ZFS … I’d say it’s very similar to BTRFS, but just slightly too complex on Linux with all the licensing issues, etc. so I just can’t be bothered with it.
As a throw-away comment, I’d say ZFS is used by TrusNAS (not a problem, just sayin’…) and… that’s about it??
As to the OPs original question, I agree with the others here… something’s not right there, but it’s probably not the filesystem.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
FWIW lvm can give you snapshots and other features. And mdadm can be used for a raid. All very robust tools.
morethanevil@lemmy.fedifriends.social 7 months ago
Yes but BTRFS can this out of the box without extra tools. Both ways have their own advantage, but I would still prefer BTRFS
Paragone@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’m in BTRFS, and wish I wasn’t.
Booting into a failed mdadm RAID1 is normal,
whereas booting into a failed BTRFS RAID1 requires competent manual intervention, and special parameters given to the boot-kernel.
mdadm & lvm, with a fixed version of ZFS would be my preference.
ZFS recently had a bug discovered that was silently corrupting data, and I HOPE a fix has been got in.
Lemme see if I can find something on both of these points…
linuxnatives.net/…/using-raid-btrfs-recovering-br…
theregister.com/…/openzfs_2_2_0_data_corruption/
_ /\ _
morethanevil@lemmy.fedifriends.social 7 months ago
Never had problems, but I wish you all the best for your ZFS problem 🤗
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
ZFS will perform better on a NAS
Fisch@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
I use BTRFS on everything too nowadays. The thing that made me switch everything to BTRFS was filesystem compression.
morethanevil@lemmy.fedifriends.social 7 months ago
Yes compression is cool. Zstd level 3 to 6 is very quick too 😋
Fisch@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
I use zstd too, didn’t specifiy a level tho, so it’s just using the default. I only use like ⅔ of the disk space I used before and I don’t feel any difference in performance at all.