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. |