64

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) 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SRo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 13 hours ago

One time I had a power outage and one of the btrfs hds (not in a raid) couldn't be read anymore after reboot. Even with help from the (official) btrfs mailinglist It was impossible to repair the file system. After a lot of low level tinkering I was able to retrieve the files, but the file system itself was absolutely broken, no repair process was possible. I since switched to zfs, the emergency options are much more capable.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 13 hours ago

Was that less than 2 years ago? Were you using kernel 5.15 or newer?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

If it didn't give you problems, go for it. I've run it for years and never had issues either.

[-] tripflag@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

Not proxmox-specific, but I've been using btrfs on my servers and laptops for the past 6 years with zero issues. The only times it's bugged out is due to bad hardware, and having the filesystem shouting at me to make me aware of that was fantastic.

The only place I don't use zfs is for my nas data drives (since I want raidz2, and btrfs raid5 is hella shady) but the nas rootfs is btrfs.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours 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.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 14 hours ago

Meh. I run proxmox and other boot drives on ext4, data drives on xfs. I don't have any need for additional features in btrfs. Shrinking would be nice, so maybe someday I'll use ext4 for data too.

I started with zfs instead of RAID, but I found I spent way too much time trying to manage RAM and tuning it, whereas I could just configure RAID 10 once and be done with it. The performance differences are insignificant, since most of the work it does happens in the background.

You can benchmark them if you care about performance. You can find plenty of discussion by googling "ext vs xfs vs btrfs" or whichever ones you're considering. They haven't changed that much in the past few years.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Proxmox only supports btrfs or ZFS for raid

Or at least that's what I thought

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago

but I found I spent way too much time trying to manage RAM and tuning it,

I spent none, and it works fine. what was you're issue?

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 14 hours ago

I have four 6tb data drives and 32gb of RAM. When I set them up with zfs, it claimed quite a few gb of RAM for its cache. I tried allocating some of the other NVMe drive as cache, and tried to reduce RAM usage to reasonable levels, but like I said, I found that I was spending a lot of time fiddling instead of just configuring RAID and have it running just fine in much less time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Lem453@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours ago

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 3 points 13 hours ago

It is stable with raid 0,1 and 10.

Raid 5 and 6 are dangerous

[-] tychosmoose@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago

Using it here. Love the flexibility and features.

[-] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

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

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago

Why?

I already take backups but I'm curious if you have had any serious issues

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
64 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

40330 readers
339 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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS