Re: Encrypted software RAID1 with Debian Stretch

[Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>]

On 13/09/17 14:52, Nix wrote:
> Nonetheless, fs/ext2 is almost unmaintained these days, and bugs are
> slowly creeping back in. fs/ext4 can take up its duties perfectly well
> these days, reading and writing both ext4-sans-journal and traditional
> ext2 filesystems perfectly well.

ext2 as filesystem code in linux no longer exists. Likewise, I believe,
ext3. Both have been dropped and deleted. The only supported/maintained
ext driver now is ext4, which has backwards compatibility with 3 and 2.

Much like XFS I gather, which although nominally a single filesystem, is
actually full of compatibility code for earlier, incompatible variants.
> 
> One person having no problems with a filesystem as new as btrfs does not
> mean the filesystem is reliable enough to use for backup. The
> reliability bar for such filesystems is far higher than that for fses in
> daily use! ("The required-feature bar is often also much lower. All they
> have to do is store stuff that rarely changes and not lose it!")

"The required-feature bar is often also much lower. All they
have to do is store stuff that rarely changes and not lose it!"

Actually, btrfs is very good at that! PROVIDED you don't use the fancy
new experimental features (like raid :-) in btrfs, it works very well.
It's a nice, stable, very decent filesystem.

The only real bug left in basic functionality is IF you combine
snapshots with a disk full, it can be a disaster. Hence my comments
about monitoring disk space! Seriously, I would be very happy to set my
system up as I suggested and, apart from the learning curve (I'm
currently still on raid-1/ext on my home system, would love to upgrade
but can't afford it), I would be only to happy to entrust my backup to
btrfs.

The rule is simple - don't abuse your tools, and btrfs - USED WITHIN ITS
LIMITATIONS - is a powerful and reliable file system.

Cheers,
Wol