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.
Meh. I run proxmox and other boot drives on ext4, data drives on xfs. I don’t have any need for additional features in btrfs. Shrinking would be nice, so maybe someday I’ll use ext4 for data too.
I started with zfs instead of RAID, but I found I spent way too much time trying to manage RAM and tuning it, whereas I could just configure RAID 10 once and be done with it. The performance differences are insignificant, since most of the work it does happens in the background.
You can benchmark them if you care about performance. You can find plenty of discussion by googling “ext vs xfs vs btrfs” or whichever ones you’re considering. They haven’t changed that much in the past few years.
Proxmox only supports btrfs or ZFS for raid
Or at least that’s what I thought
ext4 and others too.
For raid?
You could do it with mdadm
Not on Proxmox
but I found I spent way too much time trying to manage RAM and tuning it,
I spent none, and it works fine. what was your issue?
I have four 6tb data drives and 32gb of RAM. When I set them up with zfs, it claimed quite a few gb of RAM for its cache. I tried allocating some of the other NVMe drive as cache, and tried to reduce RAM usage to reasonable levels, but like I said, I found that I was spending a lot of time fiddling instead of just configuring RAID and have it running just fine in much less time.
You can ignore the RAM usage, it’s just cache. It uses up to half your RAM by default but if other things need it zfs will just clear RAM for that to happen.
That might be what was supposed to happen, but when I started up the VMs I saw memory contention.
One day I had a power outage and I wasn’t able to mount the btrfs system disk anymore. I could mount it in another Linux but I wasn’t able to boot from it anymore. I was very pissed, lost a whole day of work
When did this happen?
I think 5 years ago, on Ubuntu
ACID go brrr
Don’t use btrfs if you need RAID 5 or 6.
The RAID56 feature provides striping and parity over several devices, same as the traditional RAID5/6. There are some implementation and design deficiencies that make it unreliable for some corner cases and the feature should not be used in production, only for evaluation or testing. The power failure safety for metadata with RAID56 is not 100%.
https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid56-status-and-recommended-practices
I’ve got raid 6 at the base level and LVM for partitioning and ext4 filesystem for a k8s setup. Based on this, btrfs doesn’t provide me with any advantages that I don’t already have at a lower level.
Additionaly, for my system, btrfs uses more bits per file or something such that I was running out of disk space vs ext4. Yeah, I can go buy more disks, but I like to think that I’m running at peak efficiency, using all the bits, with no waste.
btrfs doesn’t provide me with any advantages that I don’t already have at a lower level.
Well yeah, because it’s supposed to replace those lower levels.
Also, BTRFS does provide advantages over ext4, such as snapshots, which I think are fantastic since I can recover if things go sideways. I don’t know what your use-case is, so I don’t know if the features BTRFS provides would be valuable to you.
Generally, if a lower level can do a thing, I prefer to have the lower level do it. It’s not really a reason, just a rule of thumb. I like to think that the lower level is more efficient to do the thing.
I use LVM snapshots to do my backups. I don’t have any other reason for it.
That all being said, I’m using btrfs on one system and if I really like it, I may migrate to it. It does seem a whole lot simpler to have one thing to learn than all the layers.
Yup, I used to use LVM, but the two big NAS filesystems have a ton of nice features and they expect to control the disk management. I looked into BTRFS and ZFS, and since BTRFS is native to Linux (some of my SW doesn’t support BSD) and I don’t need anything other than RAID mirror, that’s what I picked.
I used LVM at work for simple RAID 0 systems where long term uptime was crucial and hardware swaps wouldn’t likely happen (these were treated like IOT devices), and snapshots weren’t important. It works well. But if you want extra features (file-level snapshots, compression, volume quotas, etc), BTRFS and ZFS make that way easier.
I am interested in compression. I may give it a try when I swap out my desktop system. I did try btrfs in it’s early, post alpha stage, but found that the support was not ready yet. I think I had a VM system that complained. It is older now and more mature and maybe it’s worth another look.
Actually, the lower level may likely be less efficient, due to being oblivious about the nature of the data.
For example, a traditional RAID1 mirror on creation immediately starts a rebuild across all the potential data capacity of the storage, without a single byte of actual data written. So you spend an entire drive wipe making “don’t care” bytes redundant.
Similarly, for snapshotting, it can only track dirty blocks. So you replace uninitialized data that means nothing with actual data, the snapshot layer is compelled to back up that unitiialized data, because it has no idea whether the blocks replaced were uninialized junk or real stuff.
There’s some mechanisms in theory and in practice to convey a bit of context to the block layer, but broadly speaking by virtue of being a mostly oblivious block level, you have to resort to the most naive and often inefficient approaches.
That said, block capacity is cheap, and doing things at the block level can be done in a ‘dumb’ way, which may be easier for an implementation to get right, versus a more clever approach with a bigger surface for mistakes.
Those are some good points. I guess I was thinking about the hardware. At least where I do RAID, it’s on the controller, so that offloads much of the parity checking and such to the controller and not the CPU. It’s all probably negligible for the apps that I run, but my hardware is quite old, so maybe trying to squeeze all the performance I can is a worthwhile activity.
Or run the raid 5 or 6 separately, with hardware raid or mdadm
Even for simple mirroring there’s an argument to be made for running it separately from btrfs using mdadm. You do lose the benefit of btrfs being able to automatically pick the valid copy on localised corruption, but the admin tools are easier to use and more proven in a case of full disk failure, and if you run an encrypted block device you need to encrypt half as much stuff.
I have no problem running it with raid 5/6. The important thing is to have a UPS.
I’ve been running a btrfs storage array with data on raid5 and metadata I believe raid1 for the last 5 or so years and have yet to have a problem because of it. I did unfortunately learn not to fully trust the windows btrfs driver but was fortunately able to restore from backups and redownloading.
I wouldn’t hesitate to set it up again for myself or anybody else, and adding a UPS would be icing on the cake. (I added UPS to my setup this last summer)
Raid 5/6, only bcachefs will solve it
Btrfs Raid 5 and raid 6 are unstable and dangerous
Bcachefs is cool but it is way to new and isn’t even part of the kernel as of yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcachefs it was added as of Linux 6.7
Edit: and I’ve said raid 5/6 as what troubles btrfs have so you proved my point while trying to explain to me that I’m not right
I though was then removed later as there was a disagreement between Linus and the bcachefs dev
Yeah, i remember something like that, i don’t remember exactly which kernel version it was when they removed it
Pretty sure it’s not removed, they just aren’t accepting any changes from the developer for the 6.13 cycle
Thanks for clarification)
For my jbod array, I use ext4 on gpt partitions. Fast efficient mature.
For anything else I use ext4 on lvm thinpools.
That doesn’t do error detection and correction nor does it have proper snapshots.
There is error detection, crc checks and lvm does snapshots and offline deduplication
However I run sha256 checks offline and PAR files for forward error correction
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.
I have never heard of anyone getting those speeds without dedicated high end hardware
Also the write will always be your bottleneck.
This is an old PC (Intel i7 3770K) with 2 HDDs (16 TB) attached to onboard SATA3 controller, 16 GB RAM and 1 SSD (120 GB). Nothing special. And it’s quite busy because it’s my home server with a VM and containers.
I’m seeing very similar speeds on my two-HDD RAID1. The computer has an AMD 8500G CPU but the load from ZFS is minimal. Reading / writing a 50GB /dev/urandom file (larger than the cache) gives me:
- 169 MB/s write
- 254 MB/s read
What’s your setup?
Maybe I am CPU bottlenecked. I have a mix of i5-8500 and i7-6700k
The drives are a mix but I get almost the same performance across machines
It’s possible, but you should be able to see it quite easily. In my case, the CPU utilization was very low, so the same test should also not be CPU-bottlenecked on your system.
Is your machine part of a cluster by chance? Of so, when you do a VM transfer what performance do you see?
Unfotunately, I can help you with that. The machine is not running any VMs.
I have similar speeds on a truenas that I installed on a simple i3 8100
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.
64 gb of ecc ram (48gb cache used by zfs) with 2tb drives (3 of them)
Yeah it sounds like I don’t have enough ram.
ZFS really likes RAM, so if you’re running anything less than 16GB, that could be your issue.
From the Proxmox documentation:
As a general rule of thumb, allocate at least 2 GiB Base + 1 GiB/TiB-Storage. For example, if you have a pool with 8 TiB of available storage space then you should use 10 GiB of memory for the ARC.
I changed the arc size on all my machines to 4GB and it runs a bit better. I am getting much better performance. I though I had changed it but I didn’t regenerate initramfs so it didn’t apply. I am still having issues with VM transfers locking up the cluster but that might be fixable by tweaking some settings.
16GB might be overkill or underkill depending on what you are doing.
Used it in development environment, well I didn’t need the snapshot feature and it didn’t have a straightforward swap setup, it lead to performance issues because of frequent writes to swap.
Not a big issue but annoyed me a bit.
My setup is different to yours but not totally different. I run ESXi 8, and I started to use BTRFS on some of my VM’s.
I had a power failure, that was longer than the UPS could handle. Most of the system shutdown safely, a few VM’s did not. All of the EXT4 VM’s were easily recovered (including another one that was XFS). TWO of the BTRFS systems crashed into a non recoverable state.
Nothing I could do to fix them, they were just toast. I had no choice but to recover using backups. This made me highly aware that BTRFS is still not a reliable FS.
I am migrating everything from BTRFS to something more stable and reliable like EXT4. It’s simply not worth the headache.
When did this happen?
It was only a few weeks ago (maybe 4). Systems are all kept up to date with ansible. Most are Debian but there are few Ubuntu. The two that failed were both Debian.
Granted both that failed have high [virtual] disk usage compared to the other VM’s. I cannot remember the failure now, but lots of searching confirmed that it was likely unrecoverable (they could boot, but only into read only). None of the btrfs-check “dangerous” commands could recover it, spitting out tons of errors about mismatching somethings (again, forgotten the error).
I had almost exactly the same thing happen.
I am using btrfs on raid1 for a few years now and no major issue.
It’s a bit annoying that a system with a degraded raid doesn’t boot up without manual intervention though.
Also, not sure why but I recently broke a system installation on btrfs by taking out the drive and accessing it (and writing to it) from another PC via an USB adapter. But I guess that is not a common scenario.
The whole point of RAID redundancy is uptime. The fact that btrfs doesn’t boot with a degraded disk is utterly ridiculous and speaks volumes of the developers.
btrfs has been the default file system for Fedora Workstation since Fedora 33 so not much reason to not use it.
You shouldn’t have abysmal performance with ZFS. Something must be up.
What’s up is ZFS. It is solid but the architecture is very dated at this point.
There are about a hundred different settings I could try to change but at some point it is easier to go btrfs where it works out of the box.
You have angered the zfs gods!
I have gotten a ton of people to help me. Sometimes it is easier to piss people off to gather info and usage tips.
You’ve been downvoted, but I’ve seen a fair share of ZFS implementations confirm your assessment.
E.g. “Don’t use ZFS if you care about performance, especially on SSD” is a fairly common refrain in response to anyone asking about how to get the best performance out of their solution.
What seems dated in its architecture? Last time I looked at it, it struck me as pretty modern compared to what’s in use today.
It doesn’t share well. Anytime anything IO heavy happens the system completely locks up.
That doesn’t happen on other systems
That doesn’t speak much of the architecture. Also it’s really odd. Not denying what you’re seeing is happening, just that it seems odd based on the setups I run with ZFS. My main server is in fact a shared machine that I use as a workstation and games along as a server. All works in parallel. I used to have a mirror, then a 4-disk RAIDz and now an 8-disk RAIDz2. I have multiple applications constantly using the pool. I don’t notice any performance slowdowns on the desktop, or in-game when IO goes high. The only time I notice anything is when something like multiple Plex transcoders hit the CPU hard. Sequential performance is around 1.3GB/s which is limited by the data bus speeds (USB DAS boxes). Random performance is very good although I don’t have any numbers out of my head. I’m using mostly WD Elements shucked disks and a couple of IronWolfs. No enterprise grade disks on this system.
I’m also not saying that you have to keep fucking around with it instead of going Btrfs. Simply adding another anecdote to the picture. If I had a serious problem like that and couldn’t figure it out I’d be on LVMRAID+Ext4 which is what used prior to ZFS.
Yeah maybe my machines are cursed
I doubt that. Some options:
- bad memory
- failing drives
- silent CPU faults
- poor power delivery
The list is endless. Maybe BTRFS is more tolerant of the problems you’re facing, but that doesn’t mean the problems are specific to ZFS. I recommend doing a bit of testing to see if everything looks fine on the HW side of things (memtest, smart tests, etc).
I set the Arc cache to 4GB and it is working better now
That is totally possible. I spent a month changing boards and CPUs to fix a curse on my main, unrelated to storage. In case you’re curious.
@avidamoeba @possiblylinux127 Does your ZFS not print on Tuesdays? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cupsys/+bug/255161/
Since most people with decently simple setups don’t have the described problem likely somethings up with your setup.
Yes ifta old and yes it’s complicated but it doesn’t have to be to get a decent performance.
I have been trying to get ZFS working well for months. Also I am not the only one having issues as I have seen lots of other posts about similar problems.
I don’t doubt that you have problems with your setup. Given the large number of (simple) zfs setups that are working flawlessly there are a bound to be a large number of issues to be found on the Internet. People that are discontent voice their opinion more often and loudly compared to the people that are satisfied.
I used to run a mirror for a while with WD USB disks. Didn’t notice any performance problems. Used Ubuntu LTS which has a built-in ZFS module, not DKMS, although I doubt there’s performance problems stemming from DKMS.
Using it here. Love the flexibility and features.
Do you rely on snapshotting and journaling? If so backup your snapshots.
Why?
I already take backups but I’m curious if you have had any serious issues
Are you backing up files from the FS or sre you backing up the snapshots? I had a corrupted journal from a power outage that borked my install. Could not get to the snapshots on boot. Booted into a live disk and recovered the snapshot that way. Would’ve taken hours to restore from a standard backup, however it was minutes restoring the snapshot.
If you’re not backing up BTRFS snapshots and just backing up files you’re better off just using ext4.
Didn’t have any btrfs problems yet, infact cow saved me a few times on my desktop.
Can you elaborate for the curious among us?
btrfs + timeshift saved me multiple times, when updates broke random stuff.
I have research to do, I see.
I run it now because I wanted to try it. I haven’t had any issues. A friend recommended it as a stable option.
