[jessant]

Does btrfs met your requirements?

[Youden]

I've tried btrfs without much luck.

btrfs still has a write hole for RAID5/6 (the kind I primarily use) [0] and has since at least 2012.

For a filesystem to have a bug leading to dataloss unpatched for over 8 years is just plain unacceptable.

I've also had issues even without RAID, particularly after power outages. Not minor issues but "your filesystem is gone now, sorry" issues.

[0]: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56

[the8472]

It's not a bug, but an unimplemented feature. They never made any promise that raid5 is production-ready.

Pretty much all software-raid systems suffer from it unless they explicitly patch over it via journaling. Hardware raid gets away with it if it has battery backups, if they don't they suffer from exactly the same problem.

[brianpgordon]

My home NAS runs btrfs in RAID 5. The key is to use software RAID / LVM to present a single block device to btrfs. That way you never use btrfs's screwed-up RAID 5/6 implementation.

[beatgammit]

Why use RAID5/6, RAID10 is much more safe because you drastically reduce the change of a cascading resilvering failure. Yes, you get less capacity per drive, but drives are (relatively) cheap.

I thought I wanted RAID5, but after reading horror stories of drives failing when replacing a failed drive, I decided it just wasn't worth the risk.

I currently run RAID1, and when I need more space, I'll double my drives and set up RAID10. I don't need most of the features of ZFS, so BTRFS works for me.

[nosequel]

btrfs is not at all reliable, so if you care about your files staying working files, it probably doesn't meet your requirements. It is like the MongoDB 0.1 of filesystems.

[jessant]

Seems pretty reliable these days. Are you commenting based upon personal experience? If so, when was it that you used btrfs?