Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

throw0101a

> Meanwhile, btrfs has rapidly gone nowhere […]

A reminder that it came out in 2009:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs

(ext4 was declared stable in 2008.)

View on HN

Yes! File systems are hard. My prediction is that it will be *at least* 10 years before this newfangled FS gains both feature- and stability parity with BTRFS and ZFS.

Also, BTRFS (albeit a modified version) has been used successfully in at least one commercial NAS (Synology), for many years. I don't see how that counts as "gone nowhere".

> Also, BTRFS (albeit a modified version) has been used successfully in at least one commercial NAS (Synology), for many years. I don't see how that counts as "gone nowhere".

Excuse me for sounding glib. My point was btrfs isn't considered a serious competitor to ZFS in many of the spaces ZFS operates. Moreover, it's inability to do RAID5/6 after years of effort is just weird now.

raid1c2, raid1c3 and raid1c4 will get you close to RAID5/6 on btrfs (in terms of redundancy), albeit with tad less disk space, but still more than normal raid 1.

> ZFS in many of the spaces ZFS operates

not a lot.

>> My point was btrfs isn't considered a serious competitor to ZFS in many of the spaces ZFS operates.

> raid1c2, raid1c3 and raid1c4 will get you close > not a lot.

I guess I just don't understand this take. btrfs doesn't do what ZFS does, and still isn't as reliable as ZFS is. When it is, maybe I'll take another look. But this is really the problem with btrfs stans -- they've been saying it's ready, when it's not, for years.

Fix the small stuff. Make it reliable. Quit making promises about how it's as good as ZFS, when it's clear it doesn't do all the things ZFS does, just some of the things most of the time.

Years of effort is a stretch, nobody serious (read: who's willing to pay for it) has been working on raid5/6 pretty much since its inception (since nobody serious needs raid 5/6 at all). Western Digital promised to fix it a couple of years ago, but there doesn't seem to be much progress since then.

Are all the foot guns described described in 2021 been fixed?

* https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu...

Not sure about "all", but apart from that article being more pissy than strictly necessary, RAID1 can now, in fact survive losing ore than one disk. That is, provided you use RAID1C3 or C4 (which keeps 3 or 4 copies, rather than the default 2). Also, not really sure how RAID1 not surviving >1 disk failure is a slight against btrfs, I think most filesystems would have issues there...

As for the rest of the article — the tone rubs me the wrong way, and somehow considering a FS shit because you couldn't be bothered to use the correct commands (the scrub vs balance ranty bit) doesn't instill confidence in me that the article is written in good faith.

I believe the writer's biggest hangup/footgunnage with btrfs is still there: it's not zfs. Ymmv.

The author is a Canonical fanboy, a company whom put all their effort into ZFS, which now seems to have been in vain.

> The author is a Canonical fanboy, a company whom put all their effort into ZFS, which now seems to have been in vain.

ZFS is in pretty heavy use?

They put no real effort into ZFS, their own userspace tooling was only half-baked and then thrown aside. Continuing to build and ship the kernel module doesn't cost them much, the hard work of ZFS development is done by others. Quite interesting how you blame others for being fanboys while being a fanboy yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com