[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: does btrfs have a feature?

On 8/14/18 3:26 AM, Stefan K wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm just just curious. 
> In the beginning of btrfs, most blogs, websites, magazins said btrfs will be THE next standard linux filesystem, so now after araound 10years it doesn't look so good, or? 
> Who use btrfs in production? What do you think - does have btrfs a feature (because ZFS on Linux is more and more stable, RedHat said we don't want btrfs anymore and focus to xfs)
> I use btrfs on some new bare-metal machines for the root-disks, because it has a build-in RAID1 and snapshots, I know LVM and md-raid have also this possibilities but in btrfs it is much easier. I don't use it for data or other things(mail, database, etc), cause it is slow compared to ext4/xfs. I'm also wondering why the hell btrfs don't support ssd's for caching like zfs.
> thanks for you opinions!
> best regards
> Stefan 

BTRFS is still used by default on OpenSUSE.

BTRFS has *mostly* feature parity with ZFS, and is considered "stable"
for every day use, with the exception that Raid5/6 is still extremely
dangerous to use in production. It also has the benefit of being
included in the Linux kernel, and is usable by the Debian installer out
of the box (so you can easily use it in Debian, whereas ZFS on root for
Debian is not easy)


Licensing issues with OpenZFS prevent it from being included in the
Linux kernel, and on Debian by default.

Personally I use BTRFS on a NAS with RAID10, and I have no problems. The
main selling point for me is data integrity and repair, something that
LVM and md-raid do not do.

BTRFS also makes it extremely easy to expand an array if you add more
disks, WITHOUT mucking around with LVM and md-raid. Just a simple
command (something that ZFS cannot easily do at this time)

btrfs device add /dev/sdX /path/to/array
btrfs filesystem balance /path/to/array

As an aside, the topic of BTRFS comes up every so often on this list.
Its worth searching the list archives:



Reply to: