I don't know how, but suddenly it was unmountable, so I tried to recover and unfortunately used btrfsck - - repair pretty early in. Now I can mount, but my drive is displayed as pretty much empty
(though 800 GB are still used according to GParted). I also can't recover anything using btrfs restore (getting parent transid failure a few thousand times).
help me /g/? I want my data back
>>54551878
>he fell for the btrfs meme
>>54551878
I'm genuinely sorry
hopefully some data recovery anon can hel you out
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.4.5
>Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for
any uses other than benchmarking and review.
>>54551934
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Is_btrfs_stable.3F
>>54552011
>Different people have different concepts of stability
clearly, OP can tell you about it.
>>54552033
Well yes, but the readme you linked was extremely outdated
>>54552093
>refs/tags/v4.4.5
That document is literally part of the current stable linux release.
>>54551878
>falling for the brtfs meme
>not using glorious god-tier ZFS
>>54551878
>Btrfs
Deprecated
http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=RHEL-6.8-Deprecates-Btrfs
>>54552188
>falling for the ZFS meme
I know I've made a mistake, especially the use of btrfsck - - repair early on, and maybe even using btrfs, but reminding me of that isn't really helpful
Too cool to use ext4 or whatever the heck is default nowadays?
Switch to HFS+ it's less starved for data than butterfingerFS.
Use a recovery application, just like there is thousand for ntfs, hfs and fat32, sure there should be a couple on linux right?...RIGHT?
>>54552236
You wont find help here you are better off looking for help on forums or reddit
>>54552288
>ext4
Not him but ext4 doesn't have snapshots or checksums
cool story bro
>>54552288
Too retarded to not shitpost?
You should of used NTFS, retard.
>>54552188
It's fucking rad, man.
>>54552236
would it help to remind you should have had backups
>>54552937
Yep, it's pretty dope. Subvolumes are probably my favorite part.
However, performance sucks for VM images for me, even with the C attribute set.
>>54552219
>Update: I've now been able to confirm with Red Hat that this change affects RHEL6 only and that Btrfs will be supported in RHEL7, still bad wording in the documentation.
>>54552925
>should of
>>54551878
I use btrfs and haven't really had problems (other than that time I accidentally nuked the header of the underlying LUKS partition of one of my partitions), but I still keep backups like a sensible person.
Why didn't you do that too, OP?
>>54552219
Thanks for posting this. I don't use Red Hat, but if I need to in the future, this is good to know.
I don't blame them; as far as I can tell, btrfs isn't their baby, and I doubt supporting it is easy. As far as I understand, its design is totally different than traditional GNU/Linux filesystems.
>>54553312
Most people are to stupid to read the documentations, no matter if ZFS or BTRFS. They all mention at least once that you should still have backups.
>>54551878
btrfs is just a shitty substitute for zfs which is perfectly fine and doesn't need a replacement, now you know
>>54553502
Shit, I saw that post but misread it somehow. Thank you family
I still wouldn't use btrfs on anything but a fresh kernel, though. The development moves very fast still
>RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5, RAID 6 and RAID 10;[31][32] however, as of March 2014 RAID 5 and RAID 6 are considered experimental features[33][34]
Btrfs could be such a nice fs, but no, oracle has to screw it.
>>54553704
Yeah, just like they did to ZFS...eh wait.
Got my ZFS volumes up and running.
I made 3 partitions across 3 disks and set them each as a different RAID type.
The first is a RAID 1 with 3 disks on the first partitions on the drive.
The second is a RAID 5 in the second partitions and the 3rd is a RAID 0 for quick sequential.
Is this kosher?
