On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:01 PM Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com> wrote:

> On 6/27/20 4:53 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 1:23 PM Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com
> > <mailto:li...@colorremedies.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     The proposal has nothing to do with raid56, let alone by default. The
> >     installer doesn't offer it as an option. And it's not relevant to the
> >     desktop. We're talking about single device btrfs file systems.
> >
> > Isn't the proposal talking about BTRFS as a default for workstations?
> Are you
> > saying that Anaconda is just going to check to see if a PC has only one
> hard
> > drive and then install BTRFS there, but if it has two devices use
> something
> > else?  Why would we be installing something by default that has widely
> known
> > broken functionality?  I would think it would be more appropriate to
> have people
> > who specifically want to use BTRFS functionality and are aware and
> knowledgeable
> > of the risks to seek it out rather than have it be some sort of
> selective
> > default.  The target audience you're aiming at by making it the default
> doesn't
> > know FAT from NTFS from EXT4 from XFS from BTRFS or do they care.
> Neither are
> > they aware or even care about purported benefits.
> >
> >
> >      > So, BTRFS is great, ready for prime time... many people are using
> it,
> >     etc. etc. etc. until something goes wrong and then you get... well,
> it's
> >     experimental and not intended for production.  Sucks to be you.
> >
> >     The raid56 criticism is relevant to raid56 use cases. What you're
> >     doing above is an association fallacy.
> >
> >
> > Actually no, this doesn't apply to just raid56.  I haven't seen where
> BTRFS has
> > been declared production ready.  It's always been this or that feature
> is OK,
> > another feature is mostly OK, or don't use this feature.  Then when
> something
> > goes wrong, the response is it's still experimental and not intended for
> > production workloads.  People then mention Facebook uses it... but my
> > understanding is that Facebook is "testing it in production".  They
> don't RELY
> > on it in production.  Why do we want to push something out like that as
> a default?
> Huh?  We absolutely rely on it in production, our whole container system
> is
> built around it.  It's literally the only thing that works with IO
> isolation
> with cgroups.  IDK where you're getting your information, but its wrong.
> It's
> deployed on millions of machines, most of our infrastructure is built
> around
> using multiple core features.  Thanks,

Actually, I got my information here:

Since you're responding here now, I'm assuming you're speaking officially
for the BTRFS project.  Could you
please either give the up-to-date official status or point me to some
project information that has been kept current?

So you're saying now that BTRFS is now officially production ready?
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