On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
> default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't
> believe 3-4 months is enough time to test it well enough. On 2.6.38.x I
> still get regular kernel abrt crashes on resume. Is it even marked stable in
> the upstream kernel yet?
Another concern is whether btrfs is going to work well to store
virtual machine disk images (ie. to replace LVM for that purpose,
where LVM is known to work very efficiently).
Last time I looked -- which I admit was a really long time ago -- it
behaved fairly pathologically with these huge monolithic files that
are rewritten in-place.
(Edit: just noticed this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127 )
These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months
specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4
and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet, but we aren't 2-3
times slower any more, maybe at the most we're 20% slower. Thanks,
Josef