On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:38:32 +0000 Hugo Mills <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Btrfs quotas just don't work well at this point, being both not > > always reliable, and dramatically increasing the scaling issues. > > Even after the recent rewrite? I'd expect that to drop back to > "unproven". There was a regression reported there, which, if I read the following discussion correctly, is getting bandaided for 4.2, with a proper fix still in development and likely not ready for the 4.3 merge window, making it 4.4 material. So from my quota-sidelines read anyway, we're looking at 4.4 for "unproven", continuing to limp along until then, and given the historic toughness of the quota problem in btrfs in general, experience is on the side of not setting any plans to actually rely on it even then. Hopefully this time it's good, solid, correct code that might be initially buggy but at least won't need another rewrite, but... like many btrfs features, while they do appear in good solid form eventually, original estimates turn out to be /wildly/ optimistic. -- Duncan - No HTML messages please; they are filtered as spam. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- 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
