Selfhosted

40677 readers

310 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Tell me why I shouldn't use btrfs (lemmy.zip)

submitted 4 weeks ago by possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

114 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

I run it now because I wanted to try it. I haven't had any issues. A friend recommended it as a stable option.

[–] tychosmoose@lemm.ee 2 points 4 weeks ago

Using it here. Love the flexibility and features.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Do you rely on snapshotting and journaling? If so backup your snapshots.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Lem453@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Btrfs only has issues with raid 5. Works well for raid 1 and 0. No reason to change if it works for you

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 weeks ago

It is stable with raid 0,1 and 10.

Raid 5 and 6 are dangerous

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think it has more issues than just with raid 5 &6!

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I am using btrfs on raid1 for a few years now and no major issue.

It's a bit annoying that a system with a degraded raid doesn't boot up without manual intervention though.

Also, not sure why but I recently broke a system installation on btrfs by taking out the drive and accessing it (and writing to it) from another PC via an USB adapter. But I guess that is not a common scenario.

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago

The whole point of RAID redundancy is uptime. The fact that btrfs doesn't boot with a degraded disk is utterly ridiculous and speaks volumes of the developers.

load more comments