←back to thread

144 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
msgodel ◴[] No.44466535[source]
The older I get the more I feel like anything other than the ExtantFS family is just silly.

The filesystem should do files, if you want something more complex do it in userspace. We even have FUSE if you want to use the Filesystem API with your crazy network database thing.

replies(3): >>44466685 #>>44466895 #>>44467306 #
anonnon ◴[] No.44466685[source]
> The older I get the more I feel like anything other than the ExtantFS family is just silly.

The extended (not extant) family (including ext4) don't support copy-on-write. Using them as your primary FS after 2020 (or even 2010) is like using a non-journaling file system after 2010 (or even 2001)--it's a non-negotiable feature at this point. Btrfs has been stable for a decade, and if you don't like or trust it, there's always ZFS, which has been stable 20 years now. Apple now has AppFS, with CoW, on all their devices, while MSFT still treats ReFS as unstable, and Windows servers still rely heavily on NTFS.

replies(7): >>44466706 #>>44466709 #>>44466817 #>>44467125 #>>44467236 #>>44467926 #>>44468462 #
leogao ◴[] No.44467125[source]
btrfs has eaten my data within the last decade. (not even because of the broken erasure coding, which I was careful to avoid!) not sure I'm willing to give it another chance. I'd much rather use zfs.
replies(1): >>44468255 #
1. bombcar ◴[] No.44468255[source]
I used reiserfs for awhile after I noticed it eating data (tail packing for the power loss) but quickly switched to xfs when it became available.

Speed is sometimes more important than absolute reliability, but it’s still an undesirable tradeoff.