On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:46:30PM -0700, Anthony Roberts wrote: > > 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, That much is already there and working. > 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. What do you think is missing? Could you create and maintain a wishlist page on the wiki[1], and populate it with all the things that people need for production use? (This is an ongoing task -- track what's actually finished and remove it; track what's currently being worked on and mark it as such; keep an eye on discussions on the mailing list for things that people need...) > 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. Hugo. [1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Someone's been throwing dead sheep down my Fun Well ---
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
