On 31 January 2016 at 02:42, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Christian Pernegger > It maybe be stable for Debian but is Debian explicitly supporting > Btrfs with this release? I don't think they are. The modules are in the kernel, the progs are in the main archive, it's an option in the installer. It's not the default fs but I couldn't find any indication that it's more or less supported than, say, xfs. Why they've chosen 3.16 (and not 3.18, which would be a long term release) I don't know, but the fact remains that that's the default kernel of a tier 1 distro, so people using it are going to be around for a while. > But absolutely, of course we hope the problem is gone with the newer > version, *that's how file system development works.* Be that as it may, as I said, that approach doesn't inspire confidence. If I had the vaguest idea about how to reproduce it, sure, but all I have is an apparently lightly corrupted or at the very least glitchy fs (it mounts and unmounts just fine). How would I know if a new kernel helped things? > I can see how it might seem like it's a reasonable question to just > ask first, but it really isn't. There's just so much development > happening right now, a developer is not in a great position to think > that far back for specific problems and whether yours might be one of > them, and in what kernel version it was fixed. *shrug* just doesn't > work that way, that's why there are changelogs for every sub kernel > version. I do understand your point of view, but: If a possible fs corruption bug on a widespread (if older) kernel after one month of use and without any discernible cause gets nothing more than *shrug* from this list then btrfs isn't production ready nor ready for any kind of day-to-day use, not because of code maturity but because of that mindset. IMHO the btrfs-genie is too far out of the bottle for that, the wording of the stability status on the wiki much too inviting. Anyway, I knew what I was getting into, so I'll just chalk it up to experience and move on. Keep up the good work! > Have you checked out ZFS on Linux? That might fit your use case better > because it has the features you're asking for, but at least the ZFS > portion is older and considered more stable. It seemed a bit over the top on a single disk and 4GB of (not even ECC) RAM. Between btrfs' heavy development and zfsonlinux being stable but needing potentially less stable Solaris-glue and having no distro-side support I thought I'd try btrfs first. Regards, Christian Pernegger -- 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
