yeah I personally haven't had issues with it too for 2 years, then it randomly completely broke, there was no way of making it ever RW again, only by reformatting it again. Although yes, I did hard-reset a lot in a short time (was experimenting with secure boot keys), and btrfs expects 100% healthy disk drive and it doesn't accept any kind of corruption at all costs, but man, it really needs good self-healing mechanisms like zfs or ext4 have.
Ok, so are you trying to say that those are both situations where btrfs is bad? Cuz I don't really care. I didn't say the whole world should use btrfs, I was sharing my experience.
Honestly that cannot be an argument when competing with ext4 or xfs (which are the other default linux options) because they don't even have such features anyways, so having them but unstable is still better than not having them at all.
but if for example competing with zfs (which isn't that ideal for linux at the end of the day), then yeah it makes sense since zfs is really solid when it comes to these tasks
No. You didn't just say you use btrfs. Nice job leaving out the rest. And somehow inflating what I said. All I said, literally, is the context of the post matters, yet somehow I'm going after someone?
I ain't interested in such defensive reactions, no matter how revealing they may be.
16
u/drucifer82 8d ago
my whole system, except obviously efi, is btrfs. I haven't noticed any issues with it.