New Server build xfs or ext4

[spirit]

>>But I don't understand that about ceph rbd (what is RBD?)

RBD: rados block device

ceph support differents kind of access, rbd: block level (something like iscsi) cephfs: filesystem (something like nfs,cifs).

so rbd is the best for vm/ct storage, but you can also use cephfs to share some files like .iso, ....

 

[papete]

>>But I don't understand that about ceph rbd (what is RBD?)

RBD: rados block device

ceph support differents kind of access, rbd: block level (something like iscsi) cephfs: filesystem (something like nfs,cifs).

so rbd is the best for vm/ct storage, but you can also use cephfs to share some files like .iso, ....

Thank you.

 

[Gustavo Neves]

ext4 is slow. zfs is not for serious use (or is it in the kernel yet?). xfs is really nice and reliable. yes, even after serial crashing. ;-)

Sorry to revive this old thread, but I had to ask: Am I wrong to think that the main reason for ZFS never getting into the Linux Kernel is actually a license problem? AFAIK the original ZFS license was created exactly to block integration with Linux, right? Or am I wrong and things changed?

 

[twotall]

Hopefully more providers take BTRFS seriously.. I know the RAID5/6 thing is not good but RAID1/10 are great, features are great, less footprint then ZFS, AND its in kernel.

Many large enterprises (facebook google.. etc) are using BTRFS in their data centers. Let's start to take it seriously and ignore historic FUD.

 

[grin]

Many large enterprises (facebook google.. etc) are using BTRFS in their data centers. Let's start to take it seriously and ignore historic FUD.

Are they? A few years agot its performance was still rather questionable. I see that newer benchmarks are getting better results but haven't found any recent seriously looking comparison.

 

[twotall]

Are they? A few years agot its performance was still rather questionable. I see that newer benchmarks are getting better results but haven't found any recent seriously looking comparison.

Yes,
The popular at home and enterprise NAS system synology uses it
Facebook uses it in its data centers:
https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/btrfs/docs/btrfs-facebook.html
facebook and other large enterprise are actively contributing.
there are probably many using it behind closed doors without advertising it.

While getting better performance for all file systems is always desirable it is not the only value which enterprise looks toward, the featureset that makes management easier is also in the balance. BTRFS features are significant, snapshots, compression, bitrot protction, delta replication... While ZFS has these features to BTRFS is often an improvement for lower power computing and also a more compatible license for those who like GNU/Linux and the GPL.

 

[dMopp]

BCacheFS seems to be an option for the future. Already in the kernel but still experimental.

 

[grin]

The popular at home and enterprise NAS system synology uses it
Facebook uses it in its data centers:

[...]

So I went out checking, and found:

• (2024) it have gotten way faster [that's excellent];
• (2024) it is not advised to SSD media due to extreme CoW wearout (write multiplication) [not excellent];
• (2015) it is not advised for any load with small writes (databases, containers, ...) (but I have not found any information that this probelm had any changes in recent versions, and it is not even a bug but an inherent design result) (oh and it will fill up metadata pool, some reported metadata above 10% of data) [makes pretty much unusable for pve];
• filling the disk (which may happen quite unexpectedly due to two-stage writes and chunk allocation and unbalancedness) throws the fs into readonly and it has to be unmounted even just to free up space, which may or may not be feasible [not good].

Apart from the already known good, which is being in-kernel, CoW, fast snapshots (well, unless you make your metadata to grow indefinitely, then it's slow), low memory requirement and generally being much simpler than ZFS.

ps: A bunch of pointers for the sake of completeness:

• https://forums.unraid.net/topic/123...-share-due-to-irrecoverable-corruption-risks/
• https://web.archive.org/web/2020072...s/friends-dont-let-friends-use-btrfs-for-oltp
• https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg62705.html
• https://superuser.com/questions/1816739/btrfs-no-space-but-plenty-free-balance-doesnt-do-anything

 

[grin]

BCacheFS seems to be an option for the future. Already in the kernel but still experimental.

Maybe not just yet: https://www.phoronix.com/review/bcachefs-linux-67
(Apart from that it is way too young to be considered anyway. Maybe in 3-5 years.)

 

[dMopp]

Yeah, until it’s mature, I will stay with zfs