News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Five Years of Btrfs. Parent comment

Re:Five Years of Btrfs by tjoff on Monday January 27, 2020 @01:42PM (#22162403)
It very much is a concern. ZFS has no knowledge about the internals of a database, which parts of a file are related to each other etc.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Five Years of Btrfs by RX14 on Monday January 27, 2020 @02:36PM (#22162915)
DBMSes always keep their database in the file system in a consistent state to be able to recover from system crashes. Taking a file system snapshot is equivalent to pulling the power on the database server in terms of data recovery, but databases are designed to support this.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Five Years of Btrfs by tjoff on Monday January 27, 2020 @03:00PM (#22163178)
As do filesystems. Yet I've seen anyone argue that cutting the power is the recommended way of doing backups.

In fact the opposite, make sure to use an UPS just so that you can shutdown cleanly in the unfortunate event.

For example: https://blogs.oracle.com/paulie/backing-up-mysql-using-zfs-s...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Five Years of Btrfs by wmf on Monday January 27, 2020 @06:06PM (#22164796)
Some people came up with the idea of "crash-only software", arguing that it's better to maintain one code path (recovering from a crash) than two (clean start and recovery), but it hasn't caught on that much. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/hotos03/tech/full_paper...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Five Years of Btrfs by paulddraper on Monday January 27, 2020 @06:55PM (#22165102)
Google follows this, I believe
[ Parent | on HN ]