Skip to main content


Why I’m interested in BTRFS filesystem instead of ext4 on Linux


Content warning: https://gadgeteer.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/proxy-300x127.jpg According to the lead author the calling it Butter-FS originated because it comes from CoW which stands for copy-on-write, but many call it Better-FS, and it actually stands for B-tree f

in reply to Danie

Most thnigs I've read about btrfs were at least mild... most people will recommand zfs over btrfs, for both performance and reliability reasons....
in reply to alci

@alci yes ZFS was my other option but I understand ZFS does require more RAM and processing than Btrfs, so Btrfs may still find it's niche amongst smaller systems. But both use more than ext4.
@alci
in reply to Danie

@Danie BTRFS sounds great, but it's not. I've been using it as long as it's publicly available in all (stable) forms. It's okay until something goes wrong, then you've probably lost everything. Happens every time. In some cases something happens, usually a power failure, and the mechanism of BTRFS which is supposed to prevent this from happening, when it does, the entire drive and its contents become unreadable.
in reply to Azure Cerulean

@Azure Cerulean lost "everything" may be a bit extreme, but I see there was an issue that could occur when two things went wrong simultaneously, called the write hole issue. It was decsribed as "The "write hole" problem with Btrfs only potentially exists if you experience a power loss (an unclean shutdown) while having a disk that is failing immediately thereafter (or possibly at the same time) - without running a scrub in between."

That said I see comprehensive testing at https://www.unixsheikh.com/articles/battle-testing-zfs-btrfs-and-mdadm-dm.html with both ZFS and Btrfs did not show that error actually occurring. But the opinion given then in 2019 is that ZFS may well still be better than Btrfs.

I've been running Btrfs on a single drive /home drive the last year. The two occasions our power went off in mid-work certainly did not create any errors. But I do a weekly scrub, as well as a daily rsync backup to a second drive. So I suppose I'm OK in case anything does happen. But I must maybe revisit the ZFS vs Btrfs again.
in reply to Danie

Are you using BTRFS on a single drive? I've also been using BTRFS for many years, always on multiple drives, and I've never had this issue. "btrfs scrub" works well for me.
in reply to Danie

I recently had a faulty motherboard with a defective SATA connector that was breaking off, resulting in frequent crashes and reboots for several weeks until I diagnosed the problem and replaced the motherboard. I did not at any time lose any data with BTRFS - it always recovered successfully from the journal.
in reply to Danie

One thing I do pick up as an advantage for Btrfs, especially on the root drive, is that it is built into the Linux kernel which means ready use without loading external drivers, and the Btrfs stays directly in sync with any kernel updates being done.
in reply to Danie

@danie this is certainly the main selling point... that said, Ubuntu ships a kernel that includes zfs.
in reply to alci

@alci yes I see at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Reference/ZFS. No wonder Ubuntu is making another drive for enterprise desktop use. That is good to know. I did a test install of a new Manjaro Plasma in a VM and see it is handling Btrfs well on a vanilla install, but I'm not quite ready yet to migrate my boot drive disk off ext4.
@alci
in reply to Danie

I only scrub monthly, because it takes around 10-12 hours to do 5TB of data in the background. But I wouldn't want it to go longer than that without verifying the data integrity. Data can get corrupted on hard drives, and catching and correcting that is one of the strongest points of filesystems like BTRFS and ZFS.