On 2021-02-11 05:45, G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users wrote:
Hi there,
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote:
Michael Stowe wrote at about 20:50:45 +0000 on Wednesday, February 10,
2021:
> On 2021-02-09 16:34, G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users wrote:
> > Not sure if you misunderstood the question, or didn't follow the link, > or
didn't realize it appeared earlier in the thread, but that absolutely > does not qualify
as objective data, nor is it particularly accurate.
Good point!
While people will (and should) compare the pros/cons of different
filesystems until the end of time (like vi vs. emacs), it is either
naive or highly partisan to think that a well-distributed and accepted
filesystem like btrfs is 'unstable'.
I don't want to get into a pointless argument but I do feel the need to
get the point across. Apparently I haven't yet done a good job of
that.
The problem seems to be that people don't understand what's meant in
this context by the word 'unstable'.
Several people seem to think it means "contains faults". It doesn't.
It means that it's a moving target. In the case of BTRFS it's been a
moving target more or less since its creation, and people at Red Hat
were unable to keep up with it for that reason. Which is what I said
at the outset, and what is expressed in comments in the link I posted.
(This is, incidentally and despite specious argument to the contrary,
perfectly objective.)
Each of us must draw his own conclusions about how a lack of stability
might or might not affect any uses which he might make of any product.
In this case, I've drawn mine and I consider the matter now closed.
It's not a question of accepting the curiously different-than-usual
definition of "unstable," it's looking at the pace of change of btrfs
versus other filesystems which are actively maintained and noticing that
objectively, the pace of change isn't that different, neither are the
reported issues. I note that the comments you linked to are
*unsubstantiated opinion*, not objective data, and it's the opinion of a
maintenance engineer who, frankly, gets a few things objectively
incorrect when expressing this opinion, which even he notes is
paraphrased from a source outside Redhat.
This doesn't seem to be the official opinion of Redhat, though the
maintenance engineer does point out that Redhat has invested heavily in
the feature set of other file systems, and pushes Stratis. This is, of
course, their prerogative, but the only data in evidence here is that
Redhat is supporting Stratis and removing btrfs.
Objectively, btrfs has supported COW since it was first considered
stable in 2009. This is on the feature list for XFS, which is being
actively developed, foundational elements being added in 2016. This
fits your definition of "unstable."
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki
Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
