Hello,
It's stable *for you* when it functions with the workloads *you* expect of it, with a failure rate that is acceptable *to you*.
I think there's a few ancillary things like a working fsck needed before it can even be recommended for widespread use, even to users willing to risk any residual bugs. IIRC at this point the utilities don't even aspire to provide basic recovery functionality (though Chris has posted that fsck is coming). Beyond that, the management capabilities at this point don't look ready for long term use in a production environment. By this I mean adding/removing disks, reshaping arrays, etc. Without that I might use BTRFS on top of LVM/RAID just like any other filesystem, and there's features I'm looking forward to even if I that's all I can do, but without robust management features there's certain environments where it just doesn't make sense yet. There's one or two other things I'm keeping an eye on. That limitation on the number of hardlinks you can have in a directory is kinda irksome. Also, dedup needs a way to verify/dedup safely before people can start doing stuff like deduping live VM images. -Anthony -- 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
