On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:47:57 Thorwald Lundqvist wrote: > I'd say don't use btrfs at all, it has proven unstable for us in production > even without cache. It's just not ready for production use.
Perception of stability depends on experience. For instance some consider XFS
to be ready for production but it does not tolerate power loss which lead to
loss of data. Also fixing corrupted XFS may not be possible due to xfs_repair
memory requirements.
Ready for production or not depends on testing (building confidence) and
understanding limitations. As a matter of fact Btrfs is very stable and
reliable on recent kernels (3.11+) if used pretty much as ext4 i.e. without
advanced features (e.g. snapshots, subvolumes etc.).
Linux 3.14.1 is affected by serious Btrfs regression(s) that were fixed in
later releases.
Unfortunately even latest Linux can crash and corrupt Btrfs file system if
OSDs are using snapshots (which is the default). Due to kernel bugs related to
Btrfs snapshots I also lost some OSDs until I found that snapshotting can be
disabled with "filestore btrfs snap = false".
So far I'm very happy with Btrfs stability on OSDs when snapshots are
disabled.
--
Cheers,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/53968D1B
---
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
-- H. L. Mencken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
