Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 14 KB, 384x398, XFS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70699251 No.70699251 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

Use XFS now.

>> No.70699261

>>70699251
Reiserfs is better
Lead developer was based

>> No.70699291

>>70699251
>XFS is best FS
that's an odd way to spell btrfs

>> No.70699293

>>70699251
XFS is not exactly resistant to error, and there is not much in the way of recovery tools. Ext4 or BTRFS, depending on your use case, are the only real choices.

>> No.70699308

>>70699293
I've had my XFS partition survive two power outages, and I'm not using any kind of UPS system. It's pretty fucking sturdy. You don't need recovery tools for any file system if you make regular backups.

>> No.70699318

>>70699261
Reiserfs murdered my data

>> No.70699333

XFS dedupe is awesome

>> No.70699350

I had recent power failure just before I got new batteries for my UPS. Feels fucking corrupted man.

>> No.70699373

I already do anon. I would never use xfs for my / and other system partitions (you *do* seperate var and tmp, right), that should always be ext4, and for home I use btrfs, however xfs finds it's place on my 2TB HDD full of important media and other things I don't want to lose. It's better for storing media than ext4 and is also still more reliable than btrfs. Maybe in the future I'll switch over to btrfs when it's as tried and tested but for now xfs is a perfect fit for this drive.

>> No.70699377
File: 19 KB, 270x180, stratis_sidebar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70699377

Don't just use XFS. Use Stratis!
https://stratis-storage.github.io/

>> No.70699392
File: 195 KB, 681x1029, Puffystock.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70699392

What is a choice in file systems?

>> No.70699393
File: 995 KB, 500x250, 1521774717129.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70699393

Just use ext4 you tryhard snowflakes.

>> No.70699403

>>70699392
Another thing some people give up on to claim "security".

>> No.70699404

>>70699377
>Not using RHEL defaults
LMAO

>> No.70699414

>>70699392
I made this thread to shill XFS. Fuck off and make your own, BSD cuck.

>>70699393
XFS is faster on SSDs. EXT4 is a slow, buggy, piece of shit that should be depreciated.

>> No.70699416

>>70699404
>not using OpenSUSE defaults

>> No.70699418

no thanks i already upgraded to zfs (endgame for you cucks)

>> No.70699420

>>70699392
Your filesystem is shit and you are shit

>> No.70699423

>>70699251
Objectively false. ZFS is the only filesystem that doesn't suffer from bit rot and it's the most feature complete file system that exists.

>> No.70699442

>>70699423
>doesn't suffer from bit rot
Knock, knock, it's non-ECC RAM and it would like to have a word with you.

>> No.70699445
File: 27 KB, 1639x1045, Btrfs_logo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70699445

>>70699423
>ZFS is the only filesystem that doesn't suffer from bit rot
imagine actually believing this.

>> No.70699447

>>70699418
>>70699423
ZFS isn't an option on Linux because of licensing faggotry on Oracle's part. It's nice on systems like OpenIndiana that actually support it.

>> No.70699459

>>70699445
btrfs doesn't have any of the bit rot protection that ZFS has

>> No.70699460

>>70699447
You can install it in like one command on Ubuntu Server.

>> No.70699462

>>70699447
ZFS on Linux works great now.

>>70699445
Btrfs is memeware that was created because ZFS wasn't available on Linux at the time. Red Hat dropped support as soon as ZFS became stable on Linux.

>> No.70699464

>>70699459
wrong.

>> No.70699472

Yea why don't I just wipe my entire hard drive so I can use a different file system and perceive absolutely no difference between my previous file system and my current one but its OK because now the lifespan of my drive has decreased from having to backup and restore all my files and not only that my fucking time is totally wasted and I will never be able to get it back good idea retard why don't I just stick my shit in my nose and take a deep whiff and piss all over my motherboard while I'm at it just because you said I should on the internet, fucking retard

>> No.70699475

>>70699464
I'm not going to argue why you're dumb but there's a reason CERN uses ZFS and not Btrfs, and I can assure you they've put more thought into the matter than you.

>> No.70699479

>>70699462
>Red Hat dropped support as soon as ZFS became stable on Linux.
No. They dropped support because they didn't like it. They don't and aren't going to officially support running some off-license thing on their systems. Somehow Ubuntu gets away with having it in the repos, but whatever.
The point is, Redhat's actually using neither, and developing their own Stratis storage system mentioned earlier in this thread.

>> No.70699484

>>70699472
lol u mad bro?

>> No.70699492

>>70699475
>there's a reason CERN uses ZFS
Because they probably started using it back when it was a Solaris thing so why stop now?
I'm not saying that's the reason, but i'm not saying that it's not the reason.

>> No.70699519

>>70699261
If he ever needs cataract surgery, I will get to see him at my office--assuming they let him out

>> No.70699528

>>70699492
No, they use ZFS on Linux. And they use it because ZFS + Ceph is fucking crazy scaleable with zero data degredation. Nothing else comes close.

>> No.70699531

>>70699414
youre a shill and you dont use zfs fuck off

>> No.70699605

>>70699293
xfs_repair works great, the catch is you have to run it manually. It's not automatic on boot like fsck.ext4.

>>70699373
XFS has been more reliable than ext4 since Linux 3.x era.

>> No.70699615

>>70699605
Yea but the actual GNU/Linux operating system is tested primarily against ext4. If you want things to 'just werk' it's the best option for root.

>> No.70699636

>>70699393
Is ext4 finally able to create filesystems over 16TB? I ran into this limit back in 2011 and was really pissed so i used xfs since then.

>> No.70699669

>>70699615
>In Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, XFS is the default file system and is supported on all architectures.
In the enterprise world xfs is the standard.

>> No.70700950
File: 163 KB, 684x684, zoe-cramond-1216871.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70700950

>>70699447
The
https://linuxhint.com/install-zfs-debian/
Fuck
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Debian
Are
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/383566/install-zfs-on-debian-9-stretch
you
https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/how-to-install-and-configure-zfs-on-debian-8-jessie/
on
https://blog.ubuntu.com/2018/02/09/tutorial-setup-a-zfs-storage-pool
about?

>> No.70701025
File: 152 KB, 466x492, 1411811137441.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70701025

How do I diagnose my ext4 systems for bit rot if I don't have hashes of the files to compare to? The thought of backing up bitrotted files is scaring me.
But in general, ext4 has always been reliable, never had an issue even though I used to power off my system by unplugging power cord for years.

>> No.70701111

>>70699636
Dunno about creation, but expanding goes fine, I've 20TB.
You can test its limits by creating a thinly provisioned volume.

>> No.70701513

>>70699251
I really like JFS.
Also you can't shrink XFS.

>> No.70701541

>>70699447
>licensing faggotry on Oracle's part.

It's incredible how many problems have this as a source.

>> No.70701932
File: 83 KB, 900x900, dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70701932

>>70699475
You're a fucking idiot. "MUH CERN" does not change the fact that btrfs writes checksums to the disk and DOES use them to protect against bitrot.

>> No.70702480

The truly intelligent choice is making your whole drive swap and then mounting everything as tempfs.

>> No.70702894

>>70699251
exFAT is better
Werks on everything
And doesn't have size limit

>> No.70703024

>>70702894
Why would you want to use exFAT?

>> No.70703220

>>70699291
>>70699293
>>70699373
>>70699445
>Btrfs
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=btrfs

>> No.70703264

>>70703220
>opensuse
Found your problem.

>> No.70703302

>>70703264
And that problem is...?

>> No.70703820

>>70703220
I've had a 12TB RAID5 btrfs array for a year now and it's fine. I've used "normal" btrfs since 2014 and haven't lost a single piece of data yet. I can understand not wanting to use BTRFS's raid as it's still rather experimental but normal btrfs is fine and has been for a while now.

>> No.70704187

>>70703024
Mobile phones and card readers
And being able to access it on any OS
Including Windows linux macOS

>> No.70704424

>>70701541
I don't want to defend oracle, they are worse than niggers, but the license is from Sun.

>> No.70704444
File: 95 KB, 547x435, 1323006610943.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70704444

>>70703302

>> No.70704481

>>70699293
You're very wrong. BTRFS doesn't even compare, and ext4 is at most equal to xfs in terms of robustness.

XFS is an amazing filesystem overall. Quite "boring" except for tunables that let you turn shit off, but so very reliable and predictable overall.

>> No.70704522

>>70701025
Sure, you can't. OTOH unless you have a backup that is still intact, just *detecting* bit rot is rather useless.

If it's on the backup side (like with borg or restic, which you should use anyhow), you can actually use these if you feel like it.

But generally it's much nicer if you have erasure coding (e.g. with snapraid or par2 or ceph) to actually detect changes and fix stuff.

>> No.70704588

bcachefs.

>> No.70704598

>>70704588
Not yet.
But soon™

>> No.70704609

>>70704598
will be upstreamed into the Linux kernel 2019

>> No.70704618

>>70699251
What's wrong with ext4?

>> No.70704645

>>70704481
Ext4 is also predictable and reliable, so XFS being reliable isn't enough to get me to switch to it, it has to be clearly, obviously better than ext4 in some way. And as far as I can tell, it isn't. They're both filesystems, they both work. Why switch to it?

>> No.70704651

>>70699528
oh nice, I have been using ZFS on my servers for years, but for a new storage server I am building (for a hypervisor cluster for about 200 VMs) I was planning on using ceph. But I thought I was not going to be able to use ceph with zfs, I guess I was wrong. So thanks for the info.

>> No.70704700

does linux have support for both xfs and zfs?

>> No.70704702

>>70704645
Xfs is the most reliable filesystem and extremely robust.

That doesn't mean that the also reliable ext4 or the surely quite okay btrfs isn't reliable enough *for you*. I really don't care much if you switch or not. Switch as needed.

>> No.70704708

>>70704609
That would be really cool. Do you have a source on that?
Also, there's no need to say "Linux kernel" as Linux is always a kernel.

>> No.70704726

>>70704700
Yes, but I caution against ZFS.

That thing is pretty slow, it scales/manages poorly and so on. For example, unlike with mdadm / snapraid / ceph ... you can't even add more drives to the RAIDZ arrays. And it takes a massive amount of hardware to get ~5-6 drive's IO performance out of a 12 drive RAIDZ3 array. And it gets worse if you intended to use deduplication and such, then the hardware requirements and slowdown gets pretty extreme.

>> No.70704755

>>70699528
>>70704651
ZFS isn't even terribly scalable, that it has a huge address space doesn't mean it works well. Even xfs and ext4 scale better.

Ceph on the other hand is performing quite well and has cool features, but it's not really stable software. Tons of issues overall, and a pretty confusing messy CLI on top of that. There's no generally better alternative, but it probably won't be a smooth ride. Lizard/Moosefs or something may still be more comfy if you want a distributed filesystem with less features but more stable.

>> No.70705024

>>70704444
Goddamn.

>> No.70705122

>>70699251
You will hate yourself when it inevitably errors, corrupts all your data and no recovery tool works.
Woo, at least it was 3MB/s faster on your 500MB/s SSD. What a deal.

>> No.70705143

>>70705122
>You will hate yourself when it inevitably errors, corrupts all your data and no recovery tool works.
It's fucking XFS, the filesystem where this is more or less the LEAST likely to happen.

>> No.70705155
File: 36 KB, 547x509, ZFS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
70705155

>>70699251
I beg to differ.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action