Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Safeguarding strategies against SSD data loss
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:23:24
Message-Id: 544E7F83.4020303@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Safeguarding strategies against SSD data loss by Rich Freeman
1 Am 27.10.2014 um 16:36 schrieb Rich Freeman:
2 > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote:
3 >> Thanks Rich, I have been reading your posts about btrfs with interest, but
4 >> have not yet used it on my systems. Is btrfs agreeable with SSDs, or should I
5 >> be using f2fs:
6 >>
7 > Btrfs will auto-detect SSDs and optimize itself differently, and is
8 > generally considered to be fine on SSDs. Of course, btrfs itself is
9 > experimental and may eat your data, especially if you get it too full,
10 > but you'll be no worse off for running it on an SSD.
11 >
12 > I doubt you'll find any general-purpose filesystem that works as well
13 > overall on an SSD as something like f2fs as this is log-based and
14 > designed with SSDs in mind. However, f2fs is also very immature and
15 > also carries risks, and the last time I checked it was missing some
16 > features like xattrs as well. It also doesn't have anything like
17 > btrfs send to serialize your data.
18 >
19 > zfs on linux might be another option. I don't know how well it
20 > handles SSDs in general, and you have to fuss with FUSE
21
22 no, you don't.
23 > and a boot
24 > partition as I don't think grub supports it - it could be a bit of a
25 > PITA for a single-drive system.
26
27 nope. But I don't see any reason to use zfs with a single drive either.
28
29 > However, it is probably more mature
30 > than btrfs overall, and it certainly supports send.
31
32 and if your send stream is corrupted, your data is gone. That is why I
33 prefer cp&tar to backup my zfs data tank.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Safeguarding strategies against SSD data loss Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>