On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Bardur Arantsson <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/02/2012 06:28 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: >>> From Kconfig: >>> >>> "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format" >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> Btrfs is too immature to use in ANY kind of production-like scenario >>> where >>> you cannot afford to lose a certain amount of data (i.e. be forced to >>> restore from backup) AND suffer downtime. >>> >>> I don't think email users are going to be thrilled about the prospect of >>> "lossy" email. >> >> >> Oracle fully supports btrfs for production environment: >> http://oss.oracle.com/ol6/docs/RELEASE-NOTES-UEK2-en.html >> >> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/oracles-unbreakable-enterprise-kernel-2-arrives-with-linux-30-kernel-btrfs/10588 >> http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/linux/index.html >> > > What does "fully supports" mean? Does it mean that it's actually stable > (considerably more stable that mainline), or does it mean that you can pay > them to help fix a broken FS, for example? Does the included btrfsck > actually work reliably? Is there some non-legalese official statement of > what, exactly, "fully supported" means and whether OL's btrfs falls under > this rubric? That question would be best addressed to Oracle directly. Or other distro vendors supporting btrfs (IIRC SLES also supports it). > > Also, AFAIUI the 3.0.x kernels (which OL claims to use in the release notes) > are woefully outdated wrt. btrfs reliability/stability. Have all the more > recent stability improvements been backported? Chris or other devs from oracle might be able to comment more on that. I know that it's quite common for an OSS vendor to have a supported version of something, based on a version that is more thoroughly tested, and have another version (in this case the version of btrfs in mainline) that has newer, bleeding-edge code, with more features, but possibly also more bugs. > > Is the OP using Oracle Linux? He didn't say. But he didn't say he WON'T be using oracle linux (or other distro which supports btrfs) either. Plus the kernel can be installed on top of RHEL/Centos 5 and 6, so he can easily choose either the supported version, or the mainline version, each with its own consequences. > Given the semi-regular posts about FS corruption on this list(*) and the > "EXPERIEMENTAL" status in the KConfig it would be unwise to use btrfs for > anything called "production" (unless you can actually afford downtime/data > loss). Fair opinion. Personally I'm quite happy with the version that is included in Ubuntu Precise (kernel 3.2). It has actually helped me recover from a bad SSD. It was a somewhat old SSD, and about 1GB (out of 50GB) data becomes unreadable (reading directly from the block device). "btrfs scrub" was helpful enough to help me find out which files are corrupted, something I wouldn't be able to do with ext4. -- Fajar -- 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
