• subtext@lemmy.world
        4·
        2 years ago

        Same here lol, just read through ext{2…4} as well as Btrfs and Bcachefs (and B Trees of course). What a wonderful unplanned deep dive.

        • Peasley@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 years ago

          Not recommended for single-disk root partitions. This is a mistake I’ve made myself. Recovery tools are non-existant on ZFS so non-parity setups are inherently risky. If you have root setup on at least raidz1 with at least 2 disks you are fine.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            1·
            2 years ago

            Personally I wouldn’t consider recovery as an option at all because it could easily be unavailable because the SSD failed. Instead, I tend to add a mirror drive and/or keep frequent backups where that’s not possible. So from that perspective ZFS is equivalent to Ext4, which I currently use. I’d prefer ZFS over it for it’s data verification, snapshotting and datasets features.

            • Peasley@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 years ago

              I’ve successfully recovered data from ext4 on a broken drive on one occasion. I agree it would have been better to have backups so lesson learned I suppose. Still if I’d been on ZFS root with no mirror I’d have been even more SOL

    • ozymandias117@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      The ext4 driver can read ext2/ext3 partitions while supporting the 2038 time issue

      The only change here is the driver loading the filesystem

      Ext3 support is already only available through the ext4 driver

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    3·
    2 years ago

    You will still be able to mount an ext2 file system with the kernel until ext4 support is removed. That is still going to be a long, long time.

    • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
      13·
      2 years ago

      Sure, as soon as there’s a stable replacement available.
      I wouldn’t put my mission-critical file server on BTRFS.

      • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
        83·
        2 years ago

        I wouldn’t put my mission-critical file server on BTRFS.

        Oh, but I and a lot of people do and it is way more reliable than ext* filesystems ever were. Maybe ZFS or XFS is more your style then? Ext4 is very, very prone to total failure and complete data loss at the slightest hardware issue. I’m not saying you should rely on any filesystem ever, backups are important and should be there, the thing it that recovering from backups takes time and the amount of recovery that ext forced me into over the years isn’t just acceptable.

        • JetpackJackson@feddit.de
          5·
          2 years ago

          Do you have a source for the ext4 failure stuff? I use ext4 currently and want to see if there’s something I need to do now other than frequent backups

          • sep@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 years ago

            Not seen a fs corruption yet. But i have only run ext4 on around 350 production servers since 2010 ish.
            Have ofcourse seen plenty of hardware failures. But if a disk is doing the clicky, it is not another filesystem that saves you.

            Have regularly tested backups!

          • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            Well a few years ago I actually did some research into that but didn’t find much about it. What I said was my personal experience but now we also have companies like Synology pushing BRTFS for home and business customers and they have analytics on that for sure… since they’re trying to move everything…

        • lemmyreader@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          3·
          2 years ago

          I used to associate btrfs with the word unreliable for years based on what I’ve read here and there, while ext4 appears to be rock solid. Pointing to sources for this is not easy though. Here’s a start.

          See Features and Caveats here for Btrfs : https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Btrfs#Features

          For Ext4 https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Ext4

          ext4 (fourth extended file system) is an open source disk filesystem and most recent version of the extended series of filesystems. It is the primary file system in use by many Linux systems rendering it to be arguably the most stable and well tested file system supported in Linux.

          • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            2 years ago

            The “Caveats” section for BTRFS is trash, it is all about a ENOSPC issue that requires you to low level mess with the thing or run the fs for years over constant writes without any kind maintenance (with automatic defragmentation explicitly disabled). Frankly I can point from the top of my head real issues they aren’t speaking about: RAID56 (everything?), RAID10 (improve reading performance with more parallelization).

            If we take subvolumes, snapshots, deduplication, CoW, checksums and compression in consideration then there’s no reason to ever use ext4 as it is just… archaic. Synology is pushing for BRTFS at home and business so they must have analytics backing that as well.