* Solomon Peachy:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:33:40AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Just to be clear here, the choice of XFS here is purely based on
> performance, not on the reliability of the file systems, right?
> (So it's not “all the really important data is stored in XFS”.)
Be careful about overloading quite a few definitions into the single
You seem to be referring to btrfs features like file checksumming that
No, I was not. To me, for file systems, it means that under conditions
I personally consider reasonable (generally healthy hardware, and only
the occasional hard power-off after a system becomes unresponsive), the
file system can be mounted, retains consistent metadata, and most of the
data is still there, with the possible exception of things that have
been written a short time after the crash.
It's not about getting the best out of partially faulty hardware or an
execution environment with frequent power outages.
As you point out, historically, checksumming file systems weren't very
good at this, but I think for btrfs, this has improved. (For a long
time, there was a FAQ for a different checksumming file system that had
something along the lines of “Q: I can't mount my file system due to a
checksum error. A: Restore form backup.”.)