On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:33 AM, valleysmail-l...@yahoo.de <valleysmail-l...@yahoo.de> wrote: > > > > I'd like to know if there are drawbacks in using btrfs with non-ECC RAM > instead of using ext4 with non-ECC RAM.
Non-ECC RAM can cause problems no matter what fs you use. > I know that some features of btrfs may rely on ECC RAM but is the chance of > data corruption or even a damaged filesystem higher than when i use ext4 > instead of btrfs? Not really. In the past the occurence of corrupted btrfs report on this list (regardless of RAM) is somewhat high, but I don't see much of it in recent versions. > I want to know this because i would like to use the snapshot feature of btrfs > and ext4 does not support that. I will not use btrfs for fixing silent data > corruption nor for using RAID like features or encryption. ZFS however checks > files in the background (even if i don't want) zfs does not "checks files in the background" by default. When checksum is enabled (the default option), zfs only checks file integrity when you access it, and when you run the "scrub" command. It does not run background scrubs automatically. AFAIK btrfs behaves the same way. > and if it thinks there is an error it will fix it and i cannot disable this > feature. So errors in RAM may corrupt my files or even more. You can disable checksum on both btrfs and zfs. See https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_data_checksumming_be_turned_off.3F , https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Mount_options -- Fajar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
