> I've been very clear from the outset that Facebook's fault tolerance is much
> higher than the average Fedora user.  The only reason I've agreed to assist in
> answering questions and support this proposal is because I have multi-year 
> data
> that shows our failure rates are the same that we see on every other file
> system, which is basically the failure rate of the disks themselves.
> And I specifically point out the hardware that we use that most closely 
> reflects
> the drives that an average Fedora user is going to have.  We of course have a
> very wide variety of hardware.  In fact the very first thing we deployed on 
> were
> these expensive hardware RAID setups.  Btrfs found bugs in that firmware that
> was silently corrupting data.  These corruptions had been corrupting AI test
> data for years under XFS, and Btrfs found it in a matter of days because of 
> our
> checksumming.
> We use all sorts of hardware, and have all sorts of similar stories like this.
> I agree that the hardware is going to be muuuuuch more varied with Fedora 
> users,
> and that Facebook has muuuuch higher fault tolerance.  But higher production
> failures inside FB means more engineering time spent dealing with those
> failures, which translates to lost productivity.  If btrfs was causing us to 
> run
> around fixing it all the time then we wouldn't deploy it.  The fact is that 
> it's
> not, it's perfectly stable from our perspective.  Thanks,

Thanks for the details, you have any data/information/opinions on non
x86 architectures such as aarch64/armv7/ppc64le all of which have
supported desktops too?

devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to