May 3, 20179 yr When I updated to unRAID 6 I changed the format of all my data drives to xfs. Never changed the format of the cache drive though. I'm planning to replace the old HDD spinner that I've been using for cache with a new SSD and was thinking that it might also be a good time to switch the formatting. Searching the forum yielded a few rather old posts regarding the unreliability of BTRFS and some slightly newer ones from LT that all issues with it have been resolved. Couldn't find anything recent though. Should I stick with BTRFS or switch to XFS? I don't have any idea of the pros and cons of either. No plans to use cache pooling BTW.
May 3, 20179 yr Btrfs main advantages over xfs are checksums, snaphots and send/receive, I'd say go with xfs if none of those features are important to you.
May 3, 20179 yr 4 minutes ago, bonienl said: Using a cache pool there is no choice but BTRFS (and I don't have any issues). Me neither, I use btrfs on all my servers (cache and array), but since the OP has no interest in a pool I say use xfs unless there are plans to use any of the other btrfs features.
May 3, 20179 yr Author 4 minutes ago, johnnie.black said: Btrfs main advantages over xfs are checksums, snaphots and send/receive, I'd say go with xfs if none of those features are important to you. Send/Receive? Faster transfer speeds were my primary reason for getting the SSD. Not sure that 1G network limitations might be the bottleneck with either format though, or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant. 4 minutes ago, bonienl said: Using a cache pool there is no choice but BTRFS (and I don't have any issues). I saw that in another post. That's why I had added that I had no plans for pooling. I also don't mess with checksums or snapshots. Never could get checksuming to work well with time machine backups.
May 3, 20179 yr Send/receive works with snapshots, it's good to make incremental backups (of your VMs for example) to another btrfs device.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.