Re: Btrs vs ext4. Which one is more reliable?
- Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 11:49:08 +0200
- From: Dan <ganchya@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Btrs vs ext4. Which one is more reliable?
Thanks a lot for your answer.
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Andy Smith <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 04:27:32PM +0200, Dan wrote:
>> I have a NFS4 server with ext4. I'm moving to Debian Stretch. I wonder if I
>> should switch to Btrfs.
> I personally wouldn't. I do use btrfs at home and wish I didn't,
> will be moving away from it soon.
I'll follow your advice and continue using ext4. Too bad that btfrs is
still not ready. Looking forward to the time when Btrfs will be ready
> You could consider ZFS on Linux.
I prefer to use something that is in the "official" linux kernel tree.
Too bad there are these licence issues (CDDL vs GPL)
>> My understanding is that the only thing that prevents silent corruption in
>> ext4 is the hard drive CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check Error). Is that enough
>> for a server?
> Having RAID and scrubbing it regularly helps. It will at least spot
> mismatches. The mdadm package on Debian does that by default once
> per month and I could recommend making that more often if it doesn't
> cause you performance issues. Also note that if you only have a two
> way mirror and you find out there are mismatches, you may not be
> able to tell which mirror has the correct data. Forcing md to fix it
> will cause it to pick one side at random.
I'll take a look into the mdadm package and will consider RAID.
> The worst I've seen on the zfsonlinux list in the last couple of
> years is people reporting abnormally low performance in their
Hope that some day Oracle will free the license of ZFS and let the
Linux community use it under the GPL terms.