Tell me why I shouldn't use btrfs - eviltoast

About a year ago I switched to ZFS for Proxmox so that I wouldn’t be running technology preview.

Btrfs gave me no issues for years and I even replaced a dying disk with no issues. I use raid 1 for my Proxmox machines. Anyway I moved to ZFS and it has been a less that ideal experience. The separate kernel modules mean that I can’t downgrade the kernel plus the performance on my hardware is abysmal. I get only like 50-100mb/s vs the several hundred I would get with btrfs.

Any reason I shouldn’t go back to btrfs? There seems to be a community fear of btrfs eating data or having unexplainable errors. That is sad to hear as btrfs has had lots of time to mature in the last 8 years. I would never have considered it 5-6 years ago but now it seems like a solid choice.

Anyone else pondering or using btrfs? It seems like a solid choice.

  • exu@feditown.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    Did you set the correct block size for your disk? Especially modern SSDs like to pretend they have 512B sectors for some compatibility reason, while the hardware can only do 4k sectors. Make sure to set ashift=12.

    Proxmox also uses a very small volblocksize by default. This mostly applies to RAIDz, but try using a higher value like 64k. (Default on Proxmox is 8k or 16k on newer versions)

    https://discourse.practicalzfs.com/t/psa-raidz2-proxmox-efficiency-performance/1694

    • randombullet@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      30 days ago

      I’m thinking of bumping mine up to 128k since I do mostly photography and videography, but I’ve heard that 1M can increase write speeds but decrease read speeds?

      I’ll have a RAIDZ1 and a RAIDZ2 pool for hot storage and warm storage.