On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:06:12 Duncan wrote: > Which is why I'm not particularly happy with seeing all the "btrfs is > still not stable, use at your own risk" warnings disappearing. With them > there, people who chose to run btrfs /could/ be expected to have done > their research and have btrfs specific knowledge such as this, because > btrfs was clearly marked as /not/ ready for "ordinary users" not prepared > to do such research on their own. > > But now that those warnings are all being removed, btrfs should "just > work" for all those "ordinary users". > > But it doesn't. Btrfs is still special and requires btrfs-domain > specific knowledge to properly administer, as the fixes that would remove > that requirement, in this case perhaps a background thread that would > check for data/metadata imbalance and at least log a warning suggesting a > rebalance, if not triggering that rebalance on its own, simply aren't > there yet. Currently the Debian/Jessie freeze is approaching. The Debian kernel team have chosen 3.16 and don't have any plans for significant back-ports from later kernels. Based on what I've read on this list it seems that BTRFS is less stable in 3.15 than in 3.14. Even 3.14 isn't something I'd recommend to random people who want something to just work. The Debian installer has BTRFS in a list of filesystems to choose with no special notice about it. I'm thinking of filing a Debian bug requesting that they put a warning against it. What do people here think? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ -- 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
