News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by RX14 on Thursday August 24, 2017 @08:16AM (#15089431)
Which raid level were you using over those multiple disks? I've been using btrfs and never even experienced a hiccup despite continuous sector failures, continuous drive failures and even disk controllers disconnecting on the fly. And I've been running the whole thing on a single, fairly weak, server with second-hand disks attached over the cheapest USB3 sata adapters I've found. By all accounts I've been putting btrfs in a situation that is well outside the norm and I have 0 complaints. I also use it on my desktop (no raid) with similar experience (minus the shitty hardware).

I am continuously amazed at the amount of people who have issues with btrfs. It's been absolutely rock solid over the time I've used it and I have 0 complaints (apart from the ext4 -> btrfs converter producing a corrupted btrfs filesystem, but the actual kernel btrfs code itself has been flawless).

Re:A straight talk about btrfs by btmaybe on Thursday August 24, 2017 @08:33AM (#15089528)
I too have lost an entire btrfs volume (single disk) because of a bad sector. It seems btrfs is very sensitive to bad sectors in metadata, compared to ext4.

Since then, I've formatted my btrfs partition to do RAID1 on metadata and haven't had problems since.

  $ sudo btrfs fi df /
  Data, single
  System, DUP
  Metadata, DUP
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by jacknews on Thursday August 24, 2017 @08:57AM (#15089693)
Perhaps this is the secret - and should be made the default.

I don't use raid, precisely because I'm worried that failures will take down the entire set, and all of it will be unrecoverable.

I'm not at all suggesting that BTRFS is "buggy" unreliable, just, as you say, with certain kinds of disk errors (possibly rare, but it got me), the entire volume becomes unreadable, whereas I've always been able to recover files from extX or xfs volumes.

Perhaps it's just my bad luck though.

Re:A straight talk about btrfs by RX14 on Thursday August 24, 2017 @07:50PM (#15095066)
The default for single devices is to have DUP metadata, and for raid1 devices the default is raid1 metadata. These are the defaults, somehow they got bypassed. I think you're right that you need to think a little more and know a little more about btrfs to use it properly, but I hope that will change in the future.
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by pnutjam on Thursday August 24, 2017 @11:17AM (#15090784)
From the article: 'And against the demand of some partners, we are still refusing to support “Automatic Defragmentation”, “In-band Deduplication” and higher RAID levels, because the quality of these options is not where it ought to be.'

I've only used btrfs on single disk systems.

Re:A straight talk about btrfs by Dylan16807 on Thursday August 24, 2017 @08:53AM (#15089667)
Isn't that the default?
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by sp332 on Thursday August 24, 2017 @09:53AM (#15090095)
"A single device filesystem will default [metadata] to DUP, unless a SSD is detected. Then it will default to single." https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Manpage/mkfs.btrfs#O...
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by btmaybe on Thursday August 24, 2017 @10:40AM (#15090440)
It's a relatively new feature (Jan-2016) and it's disabled by default for SSD devices (increased wear). Personally I prefer increased wear over unmountable volumes.
Re:A straight talk about btrfs by atomi on Thursday August 24, 2017 @11:54AM (#15091144)
I have the same experience. btrfs has been great to me. I've disconnected disks on the fly as well on raid 1 and the mount is happily serving files off the remaining disks.