Selfhosted

40329 readers

418 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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
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.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Best Filesystem for NAS? (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Trincapinones@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A year ago I set up Ubuntu server with 3 ZFS pools on my server, normally I don't make copies of very large files but today I was making a copy of a ~30GB directory and I saw in rsync that the transfer doesn't exceed 3mb/s (cp is also very slow).

What is the best file system that "just works"? I'm thinking of migrating everything to ext4

EDIT: I really like the automatic pool recovery feature in ZFS, has saved me from 1 hard drive failure so far

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Eideen@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yes both BTRFS and Ext4 are vulnerable to unplanned powerloss when writes are in flight. Commonly knows as a write hole.

For BTRFS since it use of Copy of Write, it is more vulnerable. As metadata needs to be updated and more. Ext4 does not have CoW.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ext4 does not have CoW.

That's the only true part of this comment.

As for everything else:

Ext4 uses journaling to ensure consistency.

btrfs' CoW makes it resistant to that issue by its nature; writes go elsewhere anyways, so you can delay the "commit" until everything is truly written and only then update the metadata (using a similar scheme again).

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_file_system.

[–] Eideen@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

BTRFS is currently not Journaling

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20220513113826.GV18596@twin.jikos.cz/T/#m46f1e018485e6cb2ed42602defee5963ed8c2789

Qu Wenruo did a write up on some of the edge cases. Partial write being one of them.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

What you just posted concerns the experimental RAID5/6 mode which, unlike all other block group modes, did not have CoW's inherent safety.

As it stands, there is no stable RAID5/6 support in btrfs. If we're talking about non-experimental usage of btrfs, it is irrelevant.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

For BTRFS since it use of Copy of Write, it is more vulnerable. As metadata needs to be updated and more. Ext4 does not have CoW.

This is where theory and practice diverge and I bet a lot of people here will essentially have the same experience I have. I will never run an Ext filesystem again, not ever as I got burned multiple times both at home/homelab and at the datacenter with Ext shenanigans. BTRFS, ZFS, XFS all far superior and more reliable.

[–] Eideen@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I run BTRFS my self.

And I agree BTRFS , is superior.