The answer to this, as well as life, universe and everything, is simple: ZFS.
:) > On 07 Aug 2015, at 22:24, Quentin Hartman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I would say probably not. btrfs (or, "worse FS" as we call it around my > office) still does weird stuff from time to time, especially in low-memory > conditions. This is based on testing we did on Ubuntu 14.04, running kernel > 3.16.something. > > I long for the day that btrfs realizes it's promise, but I do not think that > day is here. > > QH > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ben Hines <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Howdy, > > The Ceph docs still say btrfs is 'experimental' in one section, but > say it's the long term ideal for ceph in the later section. Is this > still accurate with Hammer? Is it mature enough on centos 7.1 for > production use? > > (kernel is 3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.x86_64 ) > > thanks- > > -Ben > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com> > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
