On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser<jreiser(a)bitwagon.com> wrote:
>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
>>> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the
>>> past" (i.e stagnation).
>> *One* data corruption constitutes EPIC FAIL. Btrfs is too young,
>> and will be for yet a while longer.
> Well if data corruption is the test then we shouldn't be using Ext4
> either, there was one fixed as recently as the beginning of this
> month. File systems are software like anything else, there will be
> bugs. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 data corrupters we've
> had in 4 years of working on BTRFS, and they've all been hard to hit
> and have not to my knowledge been seen by users, only us developers in
> testing. BTRFS is young, but we have to start somewhere. Thanks,
I'm actually not that worried about corruption as that is something that
can be fixed once discovered. What creeps me out about btrfs at the moment
The fact that the FS needs manual rebalance operations and that these can
"take a while" (even tough this can be done online) doesn't exactly make
btrfs the ideal candidate for an end-user desktop system that should pretty
much be able to look after itself.
I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because of
it's features but this problem really worries me.
Yes this is one of the more complicated areas of BTRFS and tends to
blow up in our faces a lot. That being said it's only a big deal if
you tend to run your filesystem close to full a lot, which most people
do not. It is an area that we work very hard to make sure it's not a
problem, hopefully we have eliminated all of the big problems and you
should really only see ENOSPC when you actually fill up the disk.