I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.

For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

What would others recommend ?

--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.

For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

What would others recommend ?

When I switched away from Reiserfs, I switched to ext4.  I still use
ext2 for /boot but everything else is ext4.  So far, I haven't had any problems at all.  I have some file systems that have a lot of small
files, like /usr or /var, but I also have file systems with large
files.  It seems to work for them all.  If you know you will only ever
have large files, you may want to adjust the inodes.  There's a recent discussion on one of my threads about that.  I have not actually done it
here yet tho.  Depends on just how tight your space requirements are. 

Hope that helps.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-27, Philip Webb <purslow@ca.inter.net> wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.

For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

What would others recommend ?

I use Ext4 for almost everything. I switched to XFS for DVR storage
because back in the day it handled deletion of large (several GB)
files much more smoothly than ext<3?> did.

--
Grant

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 08:23 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:

Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

There's a reason for this. It can fulfill all but the most niche or
intensive roles, is robustly supported, well-tested both in development
and through wide use in the field, and generally "just works".

It is a great general purpose file system, for general purpose
computing. Standard LAMP stack, desktop, laptop, HTPC, etc. are all
satisfied by ext4

Since it is so broadly used and supported, you are guaranteed to find documentation for whatever feature or issue you discover.

What would others recommend ?

For general purpose computing/serving, in a non-scaling, non- performance-critical, non-experimental scenario, ext4

Unless[1] you are specifically:

* learning/exploring/experimenting
* storing billions of tiny files
* storing 1TB+ individual files
* not using any kind of backups[2]


--

[1] I'm certain that there are other use cases for which ext4 is not an
optimal choice, but I don't have first-hand experience with them.

[2] I'm aware that zfs and others can do snapshots for recovery and
"roll back" but there is no replacement for versioned hard copy backups

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-27 09:34-0400 Matt Connell <matt@connell.tech> wrote:

On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 08:23 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:

Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

There's a reason for this. It can fulfill all but the most niche or intensive roles, is robustly supported, well-tested both in
development and through wide use in the field, and generally "just
works".

It is a great general purpose file system, for general purpose
computing. Standard LAMP stack, desktop, laptop, HTPC, etc. are all satisfied by ext4

Since it is so broadly used and supported, you are guaranteed to find documentation for whatever feature or issue you discover.

i agree with all of the above.

What would others recommend ?

For general purpose computing/serving, in a non-scaling, non- performance-critical, non-experimental scenario, ext4

Unless[1] you are specifically:

* learning/exploring/experimenting
* storing billions of tiny files
* storing 1TB+ individual files
* not using any kind of backups[2]

btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the
transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase speed
in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will never get a
corrupt file and snapshots make backups and rollbacks easier.

however, they do need a bit more maintenance (described in their
respective wiki articles).

--

[1] I'm certain that there are other use cases for which ext4 is not
an optimal choice, but I don't have first-hand experience with them.

[2] I'm aware that zfs and others can do snapshots for recovery and
"roll back" but there is no replacement for versioned hard copy
backups

you can send snapshots to other drives or computers, either as full or incremental backups. i'd say it's pretty much the same. 😉

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-27 10:14-0400 Matt Connell <matt@connell.tech> wrote:

On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 15:54 +0200, tastytea wrote:

btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase
speed in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will
never get a corrupt file and snapshots make backups and rollbacks
easier.

Does the transparent compression incur an overhead cost in processing,
memory use, or disk writes? I feel like it certainly has to at least
use more memory. Sorry if that's an RTFM question.

it'll use more cpu and memory, but disk writes and reads will be lower,
because it compresses it on the fly. it should detect early if a file
is not compressible and stop. it's also possible (with btrfs at least)
to enable it on a directory basis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 15:54 +0200, tastytea wrote:

btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the
transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase speed
in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will never get a
corrupt file and snapshots make backups and rollbacks easier.

Does the transparent compression incur an overhead cost in processing,
memory use, or disk writes? I feel like it certainly has to at least
use more memory. Sorry if that's an RTFM question.

however, they do need a bit more maintenance (described in their
respective wiki articles).

This is the part that is ultimately up to OP to decide. Personally I
just want to read and write data without thinking about it or
maintaining anything. I maintain enough other stuff as it is :)

[2] I'm aware that zfs and others can do snapshots for recovery and
"roll back" but there is no replacement for versioned hard copy
backups

you can send snapshots to other drives or computers, either as full or incremental backups. i'd say it's pretty much the same. 😉

Okay, that's pretty clever, I have to admit. Incremental snapshots
that can be off-sited, handled by the filesystem itself? I'll keep
this in mind the next time I re-do a server machine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:54:34 +0200, tastytea wrote:

btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the
transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase speed
in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will never get a
corrupt file

That's only true if you use RAID, when there is a good copy to use. If
you have a single disk, they can only let you know a file is corrupt but
not restore it.


--
Neil Bothwick

Tact is for people who don't understand sarcasm.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEGfLZTV7dXdQXh/dDdCdyyQfftocFAmRKmjkACgkQdCdyyQff tocV9hAAm41hTXB7MUtjPOnwDl4Nx5VgdwdbN8OhVR+hmrI36FTJyPkHGk/oNtXN y8StGPTkWyegUcZglMTdKqJWTTiSVfoxyavE9gTnMX/7vBEtRAHA0ASkMFEf79xe pjkDi3bXlIcttsUXEL0kvNyKJ+Dlqep2R08M6YR/2Wc9wKMqWKiMlDhmXHpUnRSP qEay9UUw4J/AW5+phUfLWTeUV1aWOGXo0I4xlArm6oyNjOtz+w/fFE//2pUz6vHk //TWgFQBiYyswmGx7rhrDnqr+BMIendkrNYfW6oS3xnkhaXszosTU2QBLF1uSB+g 4tl5ehSX6yxeSusBo7I0ondsLbXePpUJU+XLY1LAlXwDVnlpN5DqpGzdoKBZozUU L9bINuu4w6EezMELGCVg3bnpwmTHaFT0RtqMGSNHu+FhVTRYy/uhWvVSRfr75Rwm FvMDZsr+aEMub7+jV5Bad7o/NpKQM6cpzPV6Vsa/nnm9dl+oE8O1kjaOlT7xb2NX 1xdonlg2gF5KLP/UPg/FGD6OSqojhOOYrNrtnqUWN8gCP7OMKhJDhyOXF13NrChV rKyFnJjXRKx3OM0nHT1zOYRaD9UBnIOO4I5ovSN4T6NSRgcuBjCC1lX+mGrmqi65 fAAhPBQQ91ZDGmEHvIGKdeBWcAFJJhWDT/Yf1aGt0Eaqq7Vm+mw=
=v9fC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/27/2023 02:23:01 PM, Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.

For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

What would others recommend ?

I have switched to BTRFS for all file systems except root (being
cautious).
The main reason is BTRFS' snapshot feature which allows me to keep many backup
versions without consuming much space.
I have never had any failure with BTRFS so far.

Helmut.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-27 16:52+0100 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:54:34 +0200, tastytea wrote:

btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase
speed in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will
never get a corrupt file

That's only true if you use RAID, when there is a good copy to use. If
you have a single disk, they can only let you know a file is corrupt
but not restore it.

well, you need to have a backup, of course. with ext4 it can happen that
a file is corrupted in a way that is not immediately obvious but causes
further damage down the line. or you get artifacts in your music and
only notice it after it is too late and all your backups have the
damaged version.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27/04/2023 16:52, Neil Bothwick wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 15:54:34 +0200, tastytea wrote:

btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the
transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase speed
in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will never get a
corrupt file

That's only true if you use RAID, when there is a good copy to use. If
you have a single disk, they can only let you know a file is corrupt but
not restore it.

I run ext4, over lvm, over raid, over dm-integrity, over spinning rust.

Quite a lot ... dm-integrity in particular is (of necessity) lashed up a
bit. But lvm over raid is normal.

https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Linux_Raid

In particular, as a matter of course, I snapshot my root partition using
lvm before I "emerge --update", though I've never had any trouble that
warrants trying to recover. It'll be quite a shock if I do ...

Cheers,
Wol

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

230428 Peter Humphrey wrote:

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 13:23:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.
For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.
What would others recommend ?

It depends: is this a UEFI machine?

No, it isn't. I await your recommendation with bated breath (smile).

Thanks to everyone else who has replied.

--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 13:23:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.

For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

What would others recommend ?

It depends: is this a UEFI machine?

--
Regards,
Peter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27.04.23 14:23, Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.

For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.

What would others recommend ?

I usually have a boot partition with ext2, a root partition containing everything that is necessary for booting on ext4 and everything else on zfs.

Andreas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 28 April 2023 10:08:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

230428 Peter Humphrey wrote:

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 13:23:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.
For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.
What would others recommend ?

It depends: is this a UEFI machine?

No, it isn't. I await your recommendation with bated breath (smile).

In that case I have nothing to add to others' suggestions; sorry. :)

--
Regards,
Peter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 28 April 2023 13:54:37 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 10:08:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

230428 Peter Humphrey wrote:

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 13:23:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.
For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.
What would others recommend ?

It depends: is this a UEFI machine?

No, it isn't. I await your recommendation with bated breath (smile).

In that case I have nothing to add to others' suggestions; sorry. :)

It used to be the case btrfs would suffer corruption if you ran out of space.
I don't know if this is the same today. Anecdotally, I've run out of space
and the fs did not become corrupt on that partition. It corrupted another
time though, but thankfully no significant data loss happened after I ran
btrfs scrub, followed by btrfs check.

Now I'm getting this warning on dmesg, but I have no idea what it means:

BTRFS warning (device sdb3): devid 1 physical 0 len 4194304 inside the
reserved space

and the same on 3 other partitions on the same disk. :-/

NOTE: I don't recall ever having problems with ext4, for many years now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/4/23 21:21, Michael wrote:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 13:54:37 BST Peter Humphrey wrote:

On Friday, 28 April 2023 10:08:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

230428 Peter Humphrey wrote:

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 13:23:01 BST Philip Webb wrote:

I've built & tested the new machine I was planning in 2022
& am at the point of designing the partitions.
For many years, I've used Reiserfs, but it is now obsolescent,
so I need to choose an alternative. Reiserfs seemed appropriate
for a system with a large number of small files.
Ext4 seems to be used by well-known binary distros.
What would others recommend ?

It depends: is this a UEFI machine?

No, it isn't. I await your recommendation with bated breath (smile).

In that case I have nothing to add to others' suggestions; sorry. :)

It used to be the case btrfs would suffer corruption if you ran out of space. I don't know if this is the same today. Anecdotally, I've run out of space and the fs did not become corrupt on that partition. It corrupted another time though, but thankfully no significant data loss happened after I ran btrfs scrub, followed by btrfs check.

Now I'm getting this warning on dmesg, but I have no idea what it means:

BTRFS warning (device sdb3): devid 1 physical 0 len 4194304 inside the reserved space

and the same on 3 other partitions on the same disk. :-/

NOTE: I don't recall ever having problems with ext4, for many years now.

Filesystem choice is very much to do with your particular use case.

I am not a fan of ext4 - lost too much data too many times.  I ve found
btrfs and xfs much tougher, and the online tools much more convenient. 
That said btrfs has its less than stellar moments.  I still have systems
that use ext4 and they "seem" reliable for light duty but I make sure I
have backups and do not trust them with anything important - been bitten
too many times!

BillK




--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 01:20:52PM +0800 schrieb William Kenworthy:

Filesystem choice is very much to do with your particular use case.

I am not a fan of ext4 - lost too much data too many times.  I ve found btrfs and xfs much tougher, and the online tools much more convenient.

I’ve been using ext4 possibly (don’t know for sure) since it was available in standard Gentoo land. I cannot remember ever having suffered data loss.

These days I like to experiment with more flash-friendly systems like f2fs, which I use on the MicroSD card of my raspberry and the 400 GB data MicroSD
in my Surface Go tablet. I also test-drive it on my mini desktop PC (all
Arch linux) because, like all my machines, it has an SSD.

That
said btrfs has its less than stellar moments.  I still have systems that use ext4 and they "seem" reliable for light duty but I make sure I have backups and do not trust them with anything important - been bitten too many times!

In what kind of situations did you encounter these problems?

--
Grüße | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

Eating is the most important meal of the day.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEVbE9o2D2lE5fhoVsizG+tUDUMMoFAmRNA1oACgkQizG+tUDU MMpBxBAAuvnRpLKMYAQmLEjgFChdi7Acs1GYDlxlyh2UeCSndzHm6nvWsLPRlCTR X5kNuchbl0TeMXS7iIkivulgIdYT3yAhOzD27Pn4nStIZLTDGSPshNzkfc+fkf0N O/mSBheRlLfyIsB1W700KpdcQnmTXW1vjSLpjaMyVAQQ03AxpbZGRLDufzTsp2BW ilpLwKHxV+wuD+9xkbk+xS8D+ULNntPK8wVYhG4xkr6KWTP/AWvgWtMW8watGM35 ShOVh99rTDBbAciv6QdP5JIydeYZj6D2E+AjzyDPJE5Lr4sljlxUpRkYo7SPcQ0v P0YTttDIqa+cWZDtBnFMSfBqyhffR+VWz2Veilaw3eU6SJiTG7Zan8I835Nzd/R8 L45F8+UtI+Who8iooDVkLTjeQAAM3oK2n31+9haS95vQKw7sFeFE6EXlmeHTxUkc 1jtTlZ7CkwEf6jITjdPnBsld0PrrJZTA4uexqR1wKK9Dos0Z81NQOd+3Z43xUgJH iKASPekgGg4UDq6gMRa2CqHIAsY+vH9ZNSQ3lrJ7iuB2joHByjqmR8LrIuWy2m7G 00tRMWkqWJnQB6xM0JQZdVhQaOuL2pNLDRLBNRYGf0phR0Vmb/yDNXYStdPR+tyv toIILaKo1osTuAmddpxJCvY/tG3bXEgdtAW+PIgVpA1LwJdovJY=
=w307
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupG

Am Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 04:58:02PM +0200 schrieb tastytea:

Does the transparent compression incur an overhead cost in processing, memory use, or disk writes? I feel like it certainly has to at least
use more memory. Sorry if that's an RTFM question.

it'll use more cpu and memory, but disk writes and reads will be lower, because it compresses it on the fly.

The lzo algorithm which is used by default incurs a negligible performance penalty. Give it a try: take some big file, e.g. a video and then:
(with $FILE being the name of the file to compress)

Compression-optimised algorithms:
time gzip -k $FILE # will take long with medium benefit
time xz -k $FILE # will take super long
time bzip2 -k $FILE # will take also long-ish

Runtime-optimised algorithms:
time lz -k $FILE # will go very very fast, but compression is relat. low time zstd $FILE # will go fast with better compression (comp. effort 3) time zstd -6 $FILE # will go fast-ish with more compression

it should detect early if a file is not compressible and stop.

AFAIK, zfs compresses the beginning of a file and only if that yields a certain benefit, the entire file will be compressed.

--
Grüße | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

The realist knows what he wants; the idealist wants what he knows.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEVbE9o2D2lE5fhoVsizG+tUDUMMoFAmRNAXoACgkQizG+tUDU MMpePhAAhKlQw+fjWmx26TiDPSPQrTVSwJdSbNXOoxtkJj9nwnPFJPMXsEY4SjaG gRiUECUR0IVZhjFZ4kowcYxIBKtEA+e1Y1B4N/2B378kFUndqZi6fQRzEHMEnEhV GTStH0w+n1C51EQF+amsyKl+LkiZOGOdJcev2tunleapKsxcxslTnShUyp+fomJo PwmxGnDIaYDg9HNdGbKEzzHeSwg6zTMUijgnekEawhHsKO7DUltNeokmJLd+Bixc foE0BP5o/3+F+inN/AyxIR4LgcvDpm8cZ7QD2fDkQXBKEc9bkgHbtiQLyz1YW38C JedZGTstm47kxOUHacrOrpCjYHkSBWt/TOeAzmuhZWf/jP4YjKDgzzJ2jgoBJwdf K60dcTqcw5oB4n3PDXwW4TnNZlx4nN2WuNrbXtzcIA2CPT3CK/kSFgo7eNyraMl9 GO/X9KteD7wzemjoOizoBEWm4Hbr0WG6x9GVPw08MYpyrumraJWxYEzWj7dFzCxu GfX5xlDqsVdcUqS/+SIzO4nfpDLTv5utkIbafcvJGixSfLbHciss/mOrLi0hG1a0 FZgpecemJlgcQeVlhqP4fchfgloCflex39WlR6T0Rkk5caJMCGcSh1uE8YZ2p5oW nftmMYhr5ANSzgBszGG2q/A4yaqZwrSBdcHpK58u/TuuAERBXu0=
=CfK9
-----END PGP SIGNAT

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 12:45:31 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:

Am Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 01:20:52PM +0800 schrieb William Kenworthy:

That
said btrfs has its less than stellar moments. I still have systems that use ext4 and they "seem" reliable for light duty but I make sure I have backups and do not trust them with anything important - been bitten too many times!

In what kind of situations did you encounter these problems?

Can't speak for William, but it was a case where using older/early versions of btrfs tools from some live-USB you found at the bottom of your bin of spares could cause worse damage and data loss on btrfs. I recall the devs recommending to always use the latest version if you were attempting a
recovery of a damaged fs and seek advice if in doubt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 02:04:52PM +0100 schrieb Michael:

On Saturday, 29 April 2023 12:45:31 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote:

Am Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 01:20:52PM +0800 schrieb William Kenworthy:

That
said btrfs has its less than stellar moments. I still have systems that use ext4 and they "seem" reliable for light duty but I make sure I have backups and do not trust them with anything important - been bitten too many times!

In what kind of situations did you encounter these problems?

Can't speak for William, but it was a case where using older/early versions of
btrfs tools from some live-USB you found at the bottom of your bin of spares could cause worse damage and data loss on btrfs. I recall the devs recommending to always use the latest version if you were attempting a recovery of a damaged fs and seek advice if in doubt.

I was asking about his data loss with ext4. ;-)

--
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

ATARI! We make top-notch toasters affordable!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEVbE9o2D2lE5fhoVsizG+tUDUMMoFAmRNevYACgkQizG+tUDU MMq9xRAArAMM/ViQXcmn3dWazztFW2PtSsIw29FslnZSG/A45dZBFNdIdk6scJlf xyrcyHK25txLRjYOkYVaclkRGaH1h/leQTHa9mZhjmB31naJZ5kgiAIOZCqnQYkW oux1bPCZpBtvrIKFxhcAXcSz2O/H9j+3TQf2G0mAxg4daOpSpeyt8llhJES6z1GH zc/fyE0IdwUCPkRR74xkqYSDxefWEnjNsmCBOINO9d6kXC7lAWrCqAPCcol9iiY0 1XTReh27UU89dx7zLr8aEFgjdWKkeJ90k2IJd3u7MXLJyBnohDNQQokg/z8oVLpq LEr9MiUwnTr8bXCe620WC4XT9Aaq/M5qJtM0y5+HrGGssWQXWdjlfESfDDVxkSBH LCY/A/imHfyx+alLvjHCwWBf1WXkzTDLHHprB0sivIifL5WAVu9H4JyVJjcJauWS 2rwcGvGoCknPkXOSOPU5Fja3Stxu6D4dvG1QKbDZBGrCKoaOlOIeSLqArNy4hiwb dmMNDqE41j3PFHyWFXeBlBshOi9+xx98KVANsKhHBC66yGa2o3kWgg5UJueabdRd bHLGs/YBoQ+V8Is88ScUf1Tv2uWhh134cR1P3wU4DaVuv7o2NulaDRXQSctXZFNX Qe4+d3+v1j8QGx0Mu5Ww19cfBA79zDc8eikFD/hbHS33bOLASj4=
=5UtQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-

On 29/4/23 19:45, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:

Am Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 01:20:52PM +0800 schrieb William Kenworthy:

Filesystem choice is very much to do with your particular use case.

I am not a fan of ext4 - lost too much data too many times.  I ve found
btrfs and xfs much tougher, and the online tools much more convenient.

I’ve been using ext4 possibly (don’t know for sure) since it was available
in standard Gentoo land. I cannot remember ever having suffered data loss.

These days I like to experiment with more flash-friendly systems like f2fs, which I use on the MicroSD card of my raspberry and the 400 GB data MicroSD in my Surface Go tablet. I also test-drive it on my mini desktop PC (all
Arch linux) because, like all my machines, it has an SSD.

That
said btrfs has its less than stellar moments.  I still have systems that use
ext4 and they "seem" reliable for light duty but I make sure I have backups >> and do not trust them with anything important - been bitten too many times!

In what kind of situations did you encounter these problems?

It was particularly bad when used with Dirvish for backups (lose ALL
your backups at once) :( - not a problem with btrfs. Also a fixed number
of nodes on creation (annoying and sometimes disastrous when it runs out
- think lots of small files like mail storage), power outages cause what
seems like silent corruption that builds up.  I will admit ext4 does
seem better these days but I am not a fan.

I am using btrfs on loopback container file systems (data for mail, web,
dav servers etc.) and that's not always successful with crashes - is
there a better one for this use case.

How do you find f2fs? - I lose (wear out I guess) SD cards on raspberry
pi and Odroid systems on a regular basis with any of the mainstream
filesystems - using them as a boot drive only extends their life, but
that's not always possible.

BillK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 10:03:01AM +0800 schrieb William Kenworthy:

That
said btrfs has its less than stellar moments.  I still have systems that use
ext4 and they "seem" reliable for light duty but I make sure I have backups
and do not trust them with anything important - been bitten too many times!

In what kind of situations did you encounter these problems?

Also a fixed number of nodes. on creation (annoying and sometimes
disastrous when it runs out - think lots of small files like mail
storage),

That would be my biggest concern, especially back in the day when I had
rather limited hardware resources. I was “haggling” with myself as to how many inodes I would really need. These days I’m more generous, but still modify the inodes count when formatting a partition. See Dale’s recent SSD thread.

power outages cause what seems like silent corruption that builds up.  I will admit ext4 does seem better these days but I am not a fan.

OK, that I’ve never had. Maybe a few forced shutdowns because the machine hung up (e.g. memory full or a botched wake from suspend).

How do you find f2fs? - I lose (wear out I guess) SD cards on raspberry pi and Odroid systems on a regular basis with any of the mainstream filesystems - using them as a boot drive only extends their life, but that's not always possible.

Well, no problems so far. But I’m not stress-testing it, it just runs™. The
Pi is just a simple pihole/radicale/nextcloud server with not much traffic
and the data card in my surface just holds my music collection. The only “issue” I currently encounter is some warning messages on Arch when I do a system update. I can’t remember the exact error, but it’s just a warning about some feature.

However:
The Arch wiki says: “F2FS has a weak fsck that can lead to data loss in case of a sudden power loss [3][4]. If power losses are frequent, consider an alternative file system.“

OTOH, Google is now using f2fs in Android data partitions. Before that, it
was ext4. :-)

--
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

After humans ceased to be apes, they became Egyptians.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEVbE9o2D2lE5fhoVsizG+tUDUMMoFAmROP+wACgkQizG+tUDU MMqyrBAAoqPcTQoRAR89Do1yenyLqvWU2C7YTk7oaJPw7bB9+tFiLiBtTKrFyUQG 3vHcdE5FeKDRKU9MmegNku6uQ7MvZe1FjicfYZx2aWLSIFeuhVYdT/0U/2/1gA3S w7EpKdh2WdLK+fXDHaQEwZadY9miCjwF/W8mB5+6LjwEURDYcnxHPk1BIJGaC4vp ISfTF++IwH4xd3oQl9nrvBk6ykaDE0oxbkTo/MaoTpe6Luh9+gQj2F+wE+TqKLnp MS6Bx6sxQ8/MQDpaMDVM6c80he1Le1Tcj/VXWiv1YFy6pdGpmLv3zn2KZfM/dbte ZNEG+Nw6fgK9/fs1aStzAN4FxP3OZdRIgmCn2tViLVKGnMDAp/3j6fsv0DFNZk8x +tWx2ju6p2blndZ0HRee3ratUouGvXtAMKBPjBARbA7yTLyMwSfy25okguTukvmv GdCfOTRRUWuXbv+xcmXkaikNdooGI31DxNaEtdj25MvfpyWWc7IQ1FU5kqYtGKCJ VkuuW5takNWtzS8Z1gdmQZYrGERmBEV1PDf/UINi9jmF2e3Fe+SzQf3GLN9pLqm+ 168TvVKWelLvAwjSWcBK4/0cnVCdRYF/w6sZhfVnaxGFEbHsuDv/QjZIQraw/9js 2j9IfKMDRmixRpDEgGkZlRR+WNDXr3tFP3ZAFPNyKc/2VFAGYFk=
=h5K4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-