I zoomed in to read what they’re saying on the bottom right and was disappointed.
it doesn’t snap like a pro, though. I’m not a windows fan, but the NTFS snapshotting tech, the Volume Shadowcopy service on windows, notifies databases and whatever that is subscribed to it so that they can finish writing whatever is in the pipeline, and receive feedback from writers when they are done to know when to proceed.
as I know, linux does not have such a mechanism. without it restoring a snapshot made on a running system is exactly like booting from a crash.
sure better than nothing. but it’s not like a pro.
ZFS: 🙂
I wish the licensing would be Linux compatible
Overall solid but BTRFS has the advantage of being Linux native in the way it works. Right now I wouldn’t use btrfs for a critical raid system but it is great for single disks.
I believe the license isn’t, and would be next to impossible the change.
But we have OpenZFS, which is under CDDL (=LGPL). So it’s fine.
Edit: I was wrong, see comment below.
As someone who uses btrfs mostly (sometimes ext4, but I don’t really know why…), can someone explain the benefits of ZFS over the previous two I mentioned?
The two biggest benefits are that it’s basically a finished implementation of btrfs (see data corruption in large pools and raid 5 and 6), as well as being able to encrypt and compress at the same time.
Plus, and I don’t know if this is a ZFS-specific thing, being able to group disks into VDevs and not just into one big raid.
Tbf, the one thing I find nice, at least for home users, is the ability to throw JBOD and it makes it all work. Less cumbersome for newcomers. Zfs needs disks of the same size or it will only group disks into a vdev and use the smallest of the disks for capacity.
That said, I run zfs and no btrfs anywhere. Had high hopes for bcachefs but… That’s not going particularly well.
Thanks for the info. Does ZFS allow for easy snapshotting like btrfs? Or like the stuff in the backend that allows you to do things like, say, edit a filename while the file is open?
ZFS is more than just a filesystem, it’s a fully-integrated disk management system which replaces mdadm, LVM, LUKS, nfsd, rsync, as well as the filesystem. It’s great for NAS boxes and file servers, since you can give it a big pile o’ disks, and it slices and dices, and offers simple commands to create whatever volumes you need.
The CoW nature of Btrfs means it’s often slower than ext4 for common tasks, right? It also means more writes to your SSDs.
I’ve stuck to ext4 so far, as someone who doesn’t really have a need for snapshotting.
Edit: I’m not an expert on file systems in the least, so do chime in if these assumptions are incorrect.
Meh, ssds are basically cow by nature anyway, you have to erase large blocks, you can’t just rewrite into them.
But if the file system needs extra writes anyway for CoW, and the SSD needs its own CoW, then wouldn’t that end up being exponential writes? Or is there some mechanism which mitigates that?
The fs does cow then releases the old block if appropriate.
The ssd has a tracking map for all blocks, it’s cow relies on a block being overwritten to free the old block.
Basically it works out the same either way.
I can’t be the only one that reads BTFRS as butt farts
That surgeon general’s warning sent me into a giggle fit.
