Re: [gentoo-user] Safeguarding strategies against SSD data loss

[Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>]

Am 27.10.2014 um 16:36 schrieb Rich Freeman:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@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.