About a year ago I switched to ZFS for Proxmox so that I wouldn’t be running technology preview.

Btrfs gave me no issues for years and I even replaced a dying disk with no issues. I use raid 1 for my Proxmox machines. Anyway I moved to ZFS and it has been a less that ideal experience. The separate kernel modules mean that I can’t downgrade the kernel plus the performance on my hardware is abysmal. I get only like 50-100mb/s vs the several hundred I would get with btrfs.

Any reason I shouldn’t go back to btrfs? There seems to be a community fear of btrfs eating data or having unexplainable errors. That is sad to hear as btrfs has had lots of time to mature in the last 8 years. I would never have considered it 5-6 years ago but now it seems like a solid choice.

Anyone else pondering or using btrfs? It seems like a solid choice.

  • vividspecter@lemm.eeEnglish
    392·
    30 days ago

    No reason not to. Old reputations die hard, but it’s been many many years since I’ve had an issue.

    I like also that btrfs is a lot more flexible than ZFS which is pretty strict about the size and number of disks, whereas you can upgrade a btrfs array ad hoc.

    I’ll add to avoid RAID5/6 as that is still not considered safe, but you mentioned RAID1 which has no issues.

      • vividspecter@lemm.eeEnglish
        9·
        29 days ago

        Check status here. It looks like it may be a little better than the past, but I’m not sure I’d trust it.

        An alternative approach I use is mergerfs + snapraid + snapraid-btrfs. This isn’t the best idea for a system drive, but if it’s something like a NAS it works well and snapraid-btrfs doesn’t have the write hole issues that normal snapraid does since it operates on r/o snapshots instead of raw data.

      • sntx@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        29 days ago

        It’s affected by the write-hole phenomenon. In BTRFS case that can mean that perfectly good old data might corrupt without any notice.