Difference between revisions of "Talk:F2FS"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Raised left eyebrow)
(Adding warning about F2FS potentially being unsafe?: If you feel it's justified, add the warning.)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
: I would have appreciated if someone told me that {{ic|btrfs}} is not suitable for partitions sized less than 100GB because of how metadata and snapshots are handled. [[User:Tallero|Tallero]] ([[User talk:Tallero|talk]]) 19:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 
: I would have appreciated if someone told me that {{ic|btrfs}} is not suitable for partitions sized less than 100GB because of how metadata and snapshots are handled. [[User:Tallero|Tallero]] ([[User talk:Tallero|talk]]) 19:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 
:: We probably should move btrfs discussion elsewhere, but the upstream [https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#if_your_device_is_small btrfs wiki] indicates btrfs is fine below 16GiB with specific options and above 16GiB with the default options. Chunks are allocated 1GB at a time, so I'm not sure why < 100GB would be a problem. [[User:Bobpaul|Bobpaul]] ([[User talk:Bobpaul|talk]]) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 
:: We probably should move btrfs discussion elsewhere, but the upstream [https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#if_your_device_is_small btrfs wiki] indicates btrfs is fine below 16GiB with specific options and above 16GiB with the default options. Chunks are allocated 1GB at a time, so I'm not sure why < 100GB would be a problem. [[User:Bobpaul|Bobpaul]] ([[User talk:Bobpaul|talk]]) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 +
: If there are citable issues (known bugs, known configurations that can be problematic, etc) then I think it's reasonable to add a warning. If it's simply you personally had a problem, then that's not very useful; it's hard for someone to look at an individuals anecdote and know whether it was a filesystem problem or an external issue like a hardware failure. That said, it looks like have you citations for some known issue(s) so go ahead and write up a warning if you feel it's justified. Don't be afraid to edit wikis; that's what why they're here.

Revision as of 18:02, 6 November 2018

Mentions FTL in the abstract

I'd like to modify the abstract of F2FS to "(Flash-Friendly File System) is a file system intended for NAND-based flash memories that includes a Flash Translation Layer(FTL)." but knows that it's inaccurate in grammar, please help me to mention it in the context. Vdragon (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding warning about F2FS potentially being unsafe?

I know F2FS is probably less popular choice than Btrfs (and other systems) for Arch install, but given than btrfs justfully have warnings listed on its page about it's stability, especially in certain circumstances and I had my filesystem become corrupted beyond repair on btrfs before, I think F2FS should be mentioned to have its issues. I recently started fiddling with F2FS on my Arch install, and I had it not only corrupt the file system, but also become impossible to mount with can't find valid checkpoint error, dropping me to emergency shell in initramfs. This happens when I uncleanly shut down the system when the rootfs was mounted and it seems that fsck.f2fs corrupted it even further in subsequent boot (and both -a and -f options aren't helping either). Luckily, I didn't lost any valuable data, but it seems that other were not so lucky with this filesystem, having the same error and losing their data [1], especially when using encryption [2][3]. With that in mind, wouldn't it be good to note that in wiki with possibly a visible warning at the beginning? Not sure if the issue wouldn't be there with 4.15 kernel, but I certainly wouldn't consider the file system 100% safe for regular use, especially in comparison to btrfs that is still hinted as such. Faalagorn / 13:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have appreciated if someone told me that btrfs is not suitable for partitions sized less than 100GB because of how metadata and snapshots are handled. Tallero (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
We probably should move btrfs discussion elsewhere, but the upstream btrfs wiki indicates btrfs is fine below 16GiB with specific options and above 16GiB with the default options. Chunks are allocated 1GB at a time, so I'm not sure why < 100GB would be a problem. Bobpaul (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If there are citable issues (known bugs, known configurations that can be problematic, etc) then I think it's reasonable to add a warning. If it's simply you personally had a problem, then that's not very useful; it's hard for someone to look at an individuals anecdote and know whether it was a filesystem problem or an external issue like a hardware failure. That said, it looks like have you citations for some known issue(s) so go ahead and write up a warning if you feel it's justified. Don't be afraid to edit wikis; that's what why they're here.