> Stable is a pretty subjective term; many don't even think ext4 is > stable. I've used it on my personal machine since .30-31-ish without > problems, and on a server w/raid 1 for about a year (btrfs + lxc is > niiice, for VMs) also free of problems. > > However, if you've been on the list you know that some do encounter > seemingly catastrophic problems, though the list is helpful in > recovering data. So, it's really going to depends on your workload > and integrity needs. I remeber someone recently using it for > continuous build servers successfully The term stable may be subjective at times, but for btrfs to be stable, it needs a working filesystem, with offline or online fsck abilities, and allowing for what's in the idea of btrfs, that is, checksumming everything, allowing snapshots and rollbacks et cetera. If btrfs is only stable as in ext4, well, why not just use ext4? The whole reason for btrfs to exist is to bring something new into the Linux world, and if those features aren't stable, then btrfs isn't. It's as simple as that. Would you buy a Subaru (or something) 4wd with a 2wd working? Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementÃrt imperativ for alle pedagoger à unngà eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer pà norsk. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
