Is BTRFS reliable compared to ZFS?

Is BTRFS reliable compared to ZFS?

Attached: file.png (800x510, 21.59K)

never used zfs but btrfs works fine on my machine.

It's very experimental, but at least the compression and subvolumes make up for it.

Unless the situation's changed, the answer has always been yes if your setup doesn't involve parity RAID, no if it does.

Openzfs is essentially superior. It has real devs too.

btrfs was shit 10 years ago is shit now and will be shit in 10 years. maybe bcachefs could be viable

>couldn't even get merged into the kernel
>better

/dev/sda / btrfs rw,relatime,ssd,space_cache,subvolid=5,subvol=/ 0 0

Attached: i.jpg (474x265, 14.81K)

*sip*
yep. ext4. now that's a real filesystem. nothing beats.

Yes. No I won't elaborate because it is all just anecdotal bullshit anyhow. It works. I use it on EL7 and Fedora 36. I'm still ass mad that I don't have a plan for EL8 since Red Hat decided to remove it as an tech preview and cuck us with some gay lvm2 framework-framework that is also a technology preview. Whatever. Gives me an excuse to skip EL and just go full bleeding edgy because fuck old stable.

I don't understand why NAS people shill so much for ZFS if btrfs is easier and good.

Wait until you see ext5!

space_cache=v2

raid 5/6 is still busted

it's not
raid5/6 support has a couple of gotchas, but outside of that it's perfectly fine

Didn't know that RHEL disabled btrfs at installation.

or better yet remove the explicit stuff excluding subvolume selection when relevant and drop the current cache, v2 will be automatically created

For me, it's ReFS.

Attached: 1654486917019.jpg (732x1024, 74.73K)

Why do these slit-eyed chinks and japs have such cumshottable faces
What is the evolutionary purpose of directing cum towards the face rather than the womb

what about bcachefs?

it's called xfs

NAS and routers are the last fortresses that BSD still has.

>+force_compress
Saves an additional 10%.