[SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

kermit63 · 2023-11-30 05:34:37

The ancient system I'm currently using is a 4th gen i3 that used to have a 120G SSD and 500G hard drive. The SSD is 6+ years old and hard drive is around 10. The hard drive died recently after a power outage, but instead of getting a replacement hard drive, I instead opted for a 1TB SSD, mostly because of the age of the existing 120G ssd. I also have 2 2TB external drives that I use to back up my important data and sufficient cloud storage to keep my really important stuff.

I read the arch wiki solid state drives and had pretty much kept to its recommendations with the 120G SSD. However, I came across this article on fedora that states:[

On variants using btrfs as the default filesystem, enable transparent compression using zstd. Compression saves space and can significantly increase the lifespan of flash-based media by reducing write amplification. It can also increase read and write performance.

Is this statement true? I have experimented with btrfs in the past so migrating to it is not really an issue. However, unless the supposed "increase in lifespan" is significant enough I would much rather stick to my current lvm/ext4 scheme. I have been on this and other tech forums long enough to notice sporadic issues with btrfs, usually brought about by some updates. Aside from compression, most of the selling point of btrfs like snapshot, etc. can be easily replicated with lvm/ext4. I'm not a big fan of automatic snapshots, so the ability to use snapper is inconsequential to me.

Last edited by kermit63 (2023-12-02 03:16:36)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2023-11-30 05:53:26

Modern SSDs need no special treatment in respect of write restriction. Most will now outlast spinning rust drives.

I use btrfs myself but only because I like to keep multiple distributions on the same partition and also because the copy-on-write paradigm renders the filesystem immune to power-loss induced corruption. Never had any issues with it in several years over several machines. YMMV.

kermit63 · 2023-11-30 06:26:27

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

I like to keep multiple distributions on the same partition and also because the copy-on-write paradigm renders the filesystem immune to power-loss induced corruption. Never had any issues with it in several years over several machines.

Thanks for the feedback @Head_on_a_Stick. The part about filesystem being immune to power-loss induced corruption really got me thinking. I live in a country where power outages are common, especially during typhoon season. In fact, while shopping for the new SSD, I already looked around, with the intention of buying a UPS. I guess I have some additional reading to do.

-thc · 2023-11-30 07:29:18

Additionally there are SSDs with PLP (power loss protection) available. Either hardware (capacitors) or software (firmware does something like COW) based.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2023-11-30 19:11:56

I'm planning to move to bcachefs as soon as kernel 6.7 lands:

https://www.phoronix.com/review/bcachef … ks-linux67

Btrfs development is now pretty much dead so bcachefs looks like the future for COW in Linux.

kermit63 · 2023-11-30 20:07:15

Ir

-thc wrote:

Additionally there are SSDs with PLP (power loss protection) available. Either hardware (capacitors) or software (firmware does something like COW) based.

I should've talked to you before buying the new ssd. In any case, it is useful information since I probably will be buying more hardware in the next few months.

My current i3 system, although still decent and functional, is starting to show its age. My plan is to build a totally new rig, probably ryzen-7 based, with the only holdover being the new ssd. I generally favor a multi-disk system, so will be adding at least one more drive to the new system.

kermit63 · 2023-11-30 20:13:20

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Btrfs development is now pretty much dead so bcachefs looks like the future for COW in Linux.

I got that impression about btrfs development after reading a few negative articles like this from Ars Tecnica more than a year ago.

kermit63 · 2023-12-02 03:16:07

I decided to stick to LVM/ext4. This statement from @Headon_a_Stick basically answered my question:

Modern SSDs need no special treatment in respect of write restriction. Most will now outlast spinning rust drives.

I also went ahead and bought a UPS for added protection against power outages. I'll be building a new rig soon and spending a not inconsequential sum, so I thought spending a little on the UPS is sound protection for the investment.

Thanks to everyone who responded.

Arch Linux

#1 2023-11-30 05:34:37

[SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

#2 2023-11-30 05:53:26

Re: [SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

#3 2023-11-30 06:26:27

Re: [SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

#4 2023-11-30 07:29:18

Re: [SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

#5 2023-11-30 19:11:56

Re: [SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

#6 2023-11-30 20:07:15

Re: [SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

#7 2023-11-30 20:13:20

Re: [SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

#8 2023-12-02 03:16:07

Re: [SOLVED]Migrating system to new SSD. Keep LVM/ext4 scheme or btrfs?

Board footer