The only thing btrfs took from ZFS was the featureset - COW, data checksumming, snapshots, multi device. ZFS was a much more conservative design, btrfs is based on COW b-trees (with significant downsides) and if you can put it in any lineage it would be Reiserfs.
Quotas that didn't work, or quotas that worked perfectly fine, but blew up your system in an unexpected way?
The reason I ask is because I'm trying to tease out if you have architectural problems with the way the filesystem is designed, or if you simply think it's unreliable.
I never wanted quotas at all, but a systemd tool turned them on unbeknownst to me. That was one problem. The second and worse problem was that the performance with quotas on was so terrible that the machine bricked.
The only thing btrfs took from ZFS was the featureset - COW, data checksumming, snapshots, multi device. ZFS was a much more conservative design, btrfs is based on COW b-trees (with significant downsides) and if you can put it in any lineage it would be Reiserfs.
Btrfs is also a clusterfuck. Perfect example for the consequences of NIH-syndrome.
> Btrfs is also a clusterfuck. Perfect example for the consequences of NIH-syndrome.
building fs with such large features set is just untrivial task, and btrfs one of very few who made it, so it is absolute success story.
> Btrfs is also a clusterfuck.
In what sense?
I've had 3 really bad kernel downtimes over the past 15 years or so, and 2 of them were due to btrfs quotas.
Quotas that didn't work, or quotas that worked perfectly fine, but blew up your system in an unexpected way?
The reason I ask is because I'm trying to tease out if you have architectural problems with the way the filesystem is designed, or if you simply think it's unreliable.
I never wanted quotas at all, but a systemd tool turned them on unbeknownst to me. That was one problem. The second and worse problem was that the performance with quotas on was so terrible that the machine bricked.