←back to thread

214 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
LeoPanthera ◴[] No.45076431[source]
It's orphaned in Debian as well, but I'm not sure what significant advantages it has over btrfs, which is very stable these days.
replies(1): >>45076586 #
betaby ◴[] No.45076586[source]
btrfs was unusable in multi disk setup for kernels 6.1 and older. Didn't try since then. How's stable btrs today in such setups?

Also see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Josef-Bacik-Leaves-Meta

replies(5): >>45076637 #>>45076834 #>>45076978 #>>45076998 #>>45081574 #
deknos ◴[] No.45076998[source]
i run btrfs on servers and desktops. it's usuable.
replies(1): >>45077119 #
williamstein ◴[] No.45077119[source]
So do I and BTRFS is extremely good these days. It's also much faster than ZFS at mounting a disk with a large number of filesystems (=subvolumes), which is critical for building certain types of fileservers at scale. In contrast, ZFS scales horribly as the number of filesystems increases, where btrfs seems to be O(1). btrfs's quota functionality is also much better than it used to be (and very flexible), after all the work Meta put into it. Finally, having the option of easy writable snapshots is nice. BTRFS is fantastic!
replies(1): >>45078576 #
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[] No.45078576[source]
> It's also much faster than ZFS at mounting a disk with a large number of filesystems (=subvolumes), which is critical for building certain types of fileservers at scale.

Now you've piqued my curiosity; what uses that many filesystems/subvolumes? (Not an attack; I believe you, I'm just trying to figure out where it comes up)

replies(2): >>45079289 #>>45079317 #
1. yencabulator ◴[] No.45079289{3}[source]
As far as I understand, a core use case at Meta was build system workers starting with prepopulated state and being able to quickly discard the working tree at the end of the build. CoW is pretty sweet for that.