Why only BTRFS for redundant cache pools?


Hollandex

Recommended Posts

Not really sure where this type of topic should live. Hopefully, this is the correct spot.

 

I'm curious why our only option for redundant cache pools is BTRFS. For instance, why couldn't we use XFS and let it handle the parity like it does with the array?

 

Not against BTRFS. Just curious why that's the only option provided for cache pools.

Link to comment
On 1/9/2023 at 5:58 PM, Hollandex said:

Not really sure... I'm curious why

That topic lives here...

 

On 1/9/2023 at 5:58 PM, Hollandex said:

I'm curious why our only option for redundant cache pools is BTRFS.

It's not. You can VM BSD and ZFS to your hearts content. Why don't you like BTRFS?... I really want to know?

 

MrGrey.

 

Link to comment
On 1/10/2023 at 11:37 PM, MrGrey said:

Why don't you like BTRFS?... I really want to know?

 

My thread history will tell the tale. haha  Long story short, I've never had much luck with it. Always getting file corruption errors, to the point of having to format the entire cache pool. Which sort of negates the redundancy of BTRFS if I'm having to format the whole thing anyway. RAM seems to be the culprit, even though 12 hours of memtest show the RAM is working just fine. So yeah, BTRFS seems neat and apparently works great for 99% of the people that use it. But not me.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.