ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS

    IT Discussion
    10
    48
    3.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates @dafyre
      last edited by

      @dafyre said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

      @scottalanmiller said in KVM and Back Ups:

      @fuznutz04 said in KVM and Back Ups:

      @scottalanmiller said in KVM and Back Ups:

      @fuznutz04 said in KVM and Back Ups:

      @scottalanmiller said in KVM and Back Ups:

      @fuznutz04 said in KVM and Back Ups:

      For example, I had a developer fubar a server the other day. Completely unrecoverable. It was hosted at vultr, and I used their backup service. I was able to completely restore the server from their snapshot backup. That’s what I am after.

      That's not crash consistent. So THAT level of backup KVM can do without anything special, it's just taking a snapshot of the storage. You have that with any system because it is done at the storage layer.

      What tools can I use to do that (scheduled) with KVM on fedora?

      If you want the Vultr style (or ProxMox risky style), you can do that right from the storage layer. So first determine the storage that you are going to use. ZFS, BtrFS, XFS, LVM, etc. Then you use the native tools (if you want) to snap it. Everything except the scheduling is just built in.

      What is the latest recommendation for storage now? LVM?

      LVM, ZFS, BtrFS are all fine. I've not used this but here is a script to do LVM backups...

      https://github.com/sayajin101/KVM-LVM-Backup-Script

      I am going on record here as recommending that you stay away from BtrFS... far, far away. I can't say anything about ZFS as I haven't used that... But around my office, we avoid BtrFS like the plague.

      I don't have any real world experience with data loss but I've read a lot of cases where people have had it. I think a lot of that might stem from people trying to use RAID 5/6 with it and that is somehow still unstable. I'm guessing that's why Red Hat dropped it and decided to make Stratis.

      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
        last edited by

        @stacksofplates said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

        @dafyre said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

        @scottalanmiller said in KVM and Back Ups:

        @fuznutz04 said in KVM and Back Ups:

        @scottalanmiller said in KVM and Back Ups:

        @fuznutz04 said in KVM and Back Ups:

        @scottalanmiller said in KVM and Back Ups:

        @fuznutz04 said in KVM and Back Ups:

        For example, I had a developer fubar a server the other day. Completely unrecoverable. It was hosted at vultr, and I used their backup service. I was able to completely restore the server from their snapshot backup. That’s what I am after.

        That's not crash consistent. So THAT level of backup KVM can do without anything special, it's just taking a snapshot of the storage. You have that with any system because it is done at the storage layer.

        What tools can I use to do that (scheduled) with KVM on fedora?

        If you want the Vultr style (or ProxMox risky style), you can do that right from the storage layer. So first determine the storage that you are going to use. ZFS, BtrFS, XFS, LVM, etc. Then you use the native tools (if you want) to snap it. Everything except the scheduling is just built in.

        What is the latest recommendation for storage now? LVM?

        LVM, ZFS, BtrFS are all fine. I've not used this but here is a script to do LVM backups...

        https://github.com/sayajin101/KVM-LVM-Backup-Script

        I am going on record here as recommending that you stay away from BtrFS... far, far away. I can't say anything about ZFS as I haven't used that... But around my office, we avoid BtrFS like the plague.

        I don't have any real world experience with data loss but I've read a lot of cases where people have had it. I think a lot of that might stem from people trying to use RAID 5/6 with it and that is somehow still unstable. I'm guessing that's why Red Hat dropped it and decided to make Stratis.

        yeah, there is a strong tendency with these kinds of filesystems to see them as "magic" and try to do things in ways you would never do with a different kind of FS, even though the risks are the same.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          Had a customer this week have BtrFS cause all kinds of performance issues. Made a NAS unusable. Switched to ext4, everything was fine.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • FATeknollogeeF
            FATeknollogee
            last edited by

            BtrFS is what Synology uses?

            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
              last edited by

              @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

              BtrFS is what Synology uses?

              It is what it optionally uses, yes.

              FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • FATeknollogeeF
                FATeknollogee @scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                @scottalanmiller said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                BtrFS is what Synology uses?

                It is what it optionally uses, yes.

                I think that is the default FS?

                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
                  last edited by

                  @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                  @scottalanmiller said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                  @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                  BtrFS is what Synology uses?

                  It is what it optionally uses, yes.

                  I think that is the default FS?

                  I believe that it is now. So people need to watch out for that, you rarely want it.

                  FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • FATeknollogeeF
                    FATeknollogee @scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    @scottalanmiller said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                    @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                    @scottalanmiller said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                    @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                    BtrFS is what Synology uses?

                    It is what it optionally uses, yes.

                    I think that is the default FS?

                    I believe that it is now. So people need to watch out for that, you rarely want it.

                    Can it be "easily" changed?

                    scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @FATeknollogee
                      last edited by

                      @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                      @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                      @scottalanmiller said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                      @FATeknollogee said in Concerns with BtrFS and ReFS:

                      BtrFS is what Synology uses?

                      It is what it optionally uses, yes.

                      I think that is the default FS?

                      I believe that it is now. So people need to watch out for that, you rarely want it.

                      Can it be "easily" changed?

                      Yes, if you catch it before you deploy.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • SanWINS
                        SanWIN @Obsolesce
                        last edited by

                        @Obsolesce ReFS is unstable, unfortunately. I saw the case when after power outage ReFS volume become RAW...

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        • 3 / 3
                        • First post
                          Last post