Am 27.10.2014 um 16:36 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks Rich, I have been reading your posts about btrfs with interest, but >> have not yet used it on my systems. Is btrfs agreeable with SSDs, or should >> I >> be using f2fs: >> > Btrfs will auto-detect SSDs and optimize itself differently, and is > generally considered to be fine on SSDs. Of course, btrfs itself is > experimental and may eat your data, especially if you get it too full, > but you'll be no worse off for running it on an SSD. > > I doubt you'll find any general-purpose filesystem that works as well > overall on an SSD as something like f2fs as this is log-based and > designed with SSDs in mind. However, f2fs is also very immature and > also carries risks, and the last time I checked it was missing some > features like xattrs as well. It also doesn't have anything like > btrfs send to serialize your data. > > zfs on linux might be another option. I don't know how well it > handles SSDs in general, and you have to fuss with FUSE
no, you don't. > and a boot > partition as I don't think grub supports it - it could be a bit of a > PITA for a single-drive system. nope. But I don't see any reason to use zfs with a single drive either. > However, it is probably more mature > than btrfs overall, and it certainly supports send. and if your send stream is corrupted, your data is gone. That is why I prefer cp&tar to backup my zfs data tank.
