BTRFS is stable!!!

[PietroTux88]

btrfs-progs 0.19.20120328-1 is done complete http://btrfs.ipv5.de/index.php?title=Main_Page read here!!!


http://www.archlinux.org/packages/testi ... rfs-progs/
on the archlinux testing repository

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Btrfs read here

Recent Developments

With the release of the Linux kernel v3.3, Btrfs has been declared stable.
On 28-Mar-2012, btrfs-progs includes btrfsck, a tool that can fix errors on btrfs filesystems.
Oracle has packaged this version of btrfs-progs and released it to their customers in Oracle Linux 5 and 6.
Tom Gundersen pushed btrfs-progs-0.19.20120328-1 into [testing] thus adding Arch, to the growing list of distros that have btrfsfsck

[newerusebtfrs]

I still don't believe it!

[sabayonino]

Oh My God !! ( )

[batvink]

think i'll stick with reiserFS for now...

[wolfden]

moving to offtopic

[chasha420]

Hey guys...I read the wiki but still can someone explain to me what benefit in performance, security or data integrity would I get from switching to Btrfs compared to something like Ext4? Please let me know the benefits when considering two scenarios:

1) A Laptop computer with limited storage space.
2) A Desktop computer with large storage space (multiple hard drives).


Thanks

[anomaly65]

been there, done that, got the tee shirt, hated it;-)

it's a very decent attempt to upgrade the EXT filesystems, but.....

google "btrfs endio" and there are still many users complaining. Even with the current 3.3 kernel, I would have random "system pauses" while disk I/O was 100% of CPU, and the mouse was non responsive. No thanks....

For large files, and large file systems, I like xfs (no patches/mods are needed on SSDs too) a lot. the toolsuite works great as well. xfs also doesn't crumble with 100k files in a single directory as some of the EXT filesystems do, such as in a maildir mailbox host. I have 28Gigs of emails in 400+ folders on an IMAP server with xfs underneath. Many mailing lists now (after 10 years) exceed 200k files. zero performance issues.

btrfs well, I'll wait a long while as everyone else enjoys the progress.

[chasha420]

@anomaly65: Thanks for the clarification, appreciate it

But I think for small hard drives like mine currently, I don't think I'll notice much of a difference by switching to XFS from Ext4 right? Also what's the difference between XFS & ZFS? I know I can google up but I'm more interested in learning from personal experience.

Thanks.

[anomaly65]

if EXTx is stable, stick with it. pretty simple. what "they" won't tell you is that btrfs is simply EXTx plus the good ideas of reiser (now a chroot'ed jailed filesystem; pun intended......) included." xfs just has 20+ years of supercomputer behind it, and finally some long awaited updates for linux that give it both experience, and reliability that we need in our systems. btrfs just isn't there yet, and has not got the long track record to deal with it.

so, IMHO, which ain't so humble ( ), EXTx or some other filesystem according to your choice and requirements. I find xfs to meet the speed needs, and performance requirements for MY uses. The toolsuite is mature and has a long track record. It wasn't invented at REDHAT, so it's not the default. pretty simple politics EXT4 works very well for a default journalled filesystem on your desktop. It doesn't expand well into the 10+ terrabyte range without showing it's performance shortcomings. btrfs wishes to bridge the gap. not yet, as of my own stress testing 2 weeks ago.

Good luck of course.

[bernd_b]

Before installing sabayon the first a few months ago, there was of course again the filesystem questions.

I googled around and tried to understand what is the advantage of what and because of what. For reasons I forgot a day later I was convinced to give xfs a try and leave btrfs aside. After years with reiserfs or jfs, which weren't bad either (with reiserfs showing a slightly felt lower number of file repair issues than jfs) I can confirm: So far I don't regret using xfs.