Selfhosted

40329 readers

419 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Tell me why I shouldn't use btrfs (lemmy.zip)

submitted 20 hours ago by possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

About a year ago I switched to ZFS for Proxmox so that I wouldn't be running technology preview.

Btrfs gave me no issues for years and I even replaced a dying disk with no issues. I use raid 1 for my Proxmox machines. Anyway I moved to ZFS and it has been a less that ideal experience. The separate kernel modules mean that I can't downgrade the kernel plus the performance on my hardware is abysmal. I get only like 50-100mb/s vs the several hundred I would get with btrfs.

Any reason I shouldn't go back to btrfs? There seems to be a community fear of btrfs eating data or having unexplainable errors. That is sad to hear as btrfs has had lots of time to mature in the last 8 years. I would never have considered it 5-6 years ago but now it seems like a solid choice.

Anyone else pondering or using btrfs? It seems like a solid choice.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] suzune@ani.social 8 points 18 hours ago (12 children)

The question is how do you get a bad performance with ZFS?

I just tried to read a large file and it gave me uncached 280 MB/s from two mirrored HDDs.

The fourth run (obviously cached) gave me over 3.8 GB/s.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (11 children)

I have never heard of anyone getting those speeds without dedicated high end hardware

Also the write will always be your bottleneck.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I have similar speeds on a truenas that I installed on a simple i3 8100

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

How much ram and what is the drive size?

I suspect this also could be an issue with SSDs. I have seen a lot a posts around describing similar performance on SSDs.

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

64 gb of ecc ram (48gb cache used by zfs) with 2tb drives (3 of them)

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah it sounds like I don't have enough ram.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

ZFS really likes RAM, so if you're running anything less than 16GB, that could be your issue.

load more comments (9 replies)