Re: Btrs vs ext4. Which one is more reliable?
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:46:09 -0400
- From: David Niklas <doark@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Btrs vs ext4. Which one is more reliable?
On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 04:59:40 +0000
Andy Smith <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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?
> No, not with multi-terabyte devices. CRC doesn't detect well enough,
> also errors can happen at different places that CRC can't always
I use RAID5 and reiserfs the only problem I've had so far is RAM
corruption (Ugh!). reierfs is very reliable, does not loose data in the
presence of being unmounted unsuccessfully, WHICH XFS DOES REALLY
BADLY(I think I even saw a video in which an fs dev said that xfs does
this on purpose so that an sensitive data does not remain on the drive).
I also tried fat32, but in the presence of being unmounted incorrectly
you'll get some data loss, but not corruption, that is to say that fat32
seems to behave like an atomic fs; either the data is on the drive or not.
Same with ext4 except that I have gotten many corruptions if it's not
properly unmounted. Nilfs2 seems to have a bug someplace in the kernel
(4.9), but I've not yet narrowed it down. I don't know anything about
others then those listed above.
Yes, I've been really busy trying to find a good FS.
> The worst I've seen on the zfsonlinux list in the last couple of
> years is people reporting abnormally low performance in their
Actually, I've read that zfs can only mount on a *totally* empty
Also, my use case is at home where the power can and *does* fail. I also
find myself using the latest kernel and oftentimes an experimental driver
for my AMD graphics card, hence my need for a *very* stable fs over