Docker(/Compose) can do mounts directly to the container as well.
https://blog.stefandroid.com/2021/03/03/mount-nfs-share-in-docker-compose.html
https://docs.docker.com/engine/storage/volumes/#create-a-service-which-creates-an-nfs-volume
I’ve used NFS mounts with docker compose before but I see the second link also includes an example for CIFS as well.
Named volumes are often the default because there is no chance of them conflicting with other services or containers running on the system.
Say you deployed two different docker compose apps each with their own MariaDB. With named volumes there is zero chance of those conflicting (at least from the filesystem perspective).
This also better facilitates easier cleanup. The apps documentation can say “docker compose down -v”, and they are done. Instead of listing a bunch of directories that need to be cleaned up.
Those lingering directories can also cause problems for users that might have wanted a clean start when their app is broken, but with a bind mount that broken database schema won’t have been deleted for them when they start up the services again.
All that said, I very much agree that when you go to deploy a docker service you should consider changing the named volumes to standard bind mounts for a couple of reasons.
When running production applications I don’t want the volumes to be able to be cleaned up so easily. A little extra protection from accidental deletion is handy.
The default location for named volumes doesn’t work well with any advanced partitioning strategies. i.e. if you want your database volume on a different partition than your static web content.
Old reason and maybe more user preference at this point but back before the docker overlay2 storage driver had matured we used the btrfs driver instead and occasionally Docker would break and we would need to wipe out the entire /var/lib/docker btrfs filesystem, so I just personally want to keep anything persistent out of that directory.
So basically application writers should use named volumes to simplify the documentation/installation/maintenance/cleanup of their applications.
Systems administrators running those applications should know and understand the docker compose well enough to change those settings to make them production ready for their environment. Reading through it and making those changes ends up being part of learning how the containers are structured in the first place.
Btrfs is a copy on write (COW) filesystem. Which means that whenever you modify a file it can’t be modified in place. Instead a new block is written and then a single atomic operation is done to flip that new block to be the location of that data.
This is a really good thing for protecting your data from things like power outages or system crashes because the data is always in a good state on disk. Either the update happened or it didn’t there is never any in-between.
While COW is good for data integrity it isn’t always good for speed. If you were doing lots of updates that are smaller than a block you first have to read the rest of the block and then seek to the new location and write out the new block. On ssds this isn’t a issue but on HDDs it can slow things down and fragment your filesystem considerably.
Btrfs has a defragmentation utility though so fragmentation is a fixable problem. If you were using ZFS there would be no way to reverse that fragmentation.
Other filesystems like ext4/xfs are “journaling” filesystems. Instead of writing new blocks or updating each block immediately they keep the changes in memory and write them to a “journal” on the disk. When there is time those changes from the journal are flushed to the disk to make the actual changes happen. Writing the journal to disk is a sequential operation making it more efficient on HDDs. In the event that the system crashes the filesystem replays the journal to get back to the latest state.
ZFS has a journal equivalent called the ZFS Intent Log (ZIL). You put the ZIL on fast SSDs while the data itself is on your HDDs. This also helps with the fragmentation issues for ZFS because ZFS will write incoming writes to the ZIL and then flush them to disk every few seconds. This means fewer larger writes to the HDDs.
Another downside of COW is that because the filesystem is assumed to be so good at preventing corruption, in some extremely rare cases if corruption gets written to disk you might lose the entire filesystem. There are lots of checks in software to prevent that from happening but occasionally hardware issues may let the corruption past.
This is why anyone running ZFS/btrfs for their NAS is recommended to run ECC memory. A random bit flipping in ram might mean the wrong data gets written out and if that data is part of the metadata of the filesystem itself the entire filesystem may be unrecoverable. This is exceedingly rare, but a risk.
Most traditional filesystems on the other hand were built assuming that they had to cleanup corruption from system crashes, etc. So they have fsck tools that can go through and recover as much as possible when that happens.
Lots of other posts here talking about other features that make btrfs a great choice. If you were running a high performance database a journaling filesystem would likely be faster but maybe not by much especially on SSD. But for a end user system the snapshots/file checksumming/etc are far more important than a tiny bit of performance. For the potential corruption issues if you are lacking ECC backups are the proper mitigation (as of DDR5 ECC is in all ram sticks).
I just did a playthrough recently and I think it holds up pretty well. A lot of wasted time on little cutscenes like opening Atla/boxes, and switching characters that gets quite annoying, but gameplay was fine.
One or two bosses that are difficult but a little leveling up, or wiki hints on how to cheese them, and they are a piece of cake. Once you hit the ship dungeon and have easier access to backrooms (since you can buy the fish to enter them) you can grind for gemstones and you end up being able to one hit almost everything from there on out.
Grinding gets a bit boring after a while, I’ll admit I enabled some fish point cheats in my emulator after I had one character with a maxed out weapon. Clear that I could easily do it myself but wasn’t going to waste that time to upgrade the other weapons I wanted leveled up.