On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 16:49, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Eric Sandeen <sand...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/9/20 2:11 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  From what I've gathered from these responses, btrfs is unique in that 
> > >> it is
> > >> /expected/ that if anything goes wrong, the administrator should be 
> > >> prepared
> > >> to scrape out remaining data, re-mkfs, and start over.  If that's 
> > >> acceptable
> > >> for the Fedora desktop, that's fine, but I consider it a risk that 
> > >> should not
> > >> be ignored when evaluating this proposal.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Agreed, it's the very first thing I said when I was asked what are the 
> > > downsides.  There's clearly more work to be done in the recovery arena.  
> > > How often do disks fail for Fedora?  Do we have that data?  Is this a 
> > > real risk? Nobody can say because Fedora doesn't have data.
> >
> > But again, let me reiterate that disk failures are far from the only
> > reason that admins need capable filesystem repair tools, in general.
> >
> > We see users running fsck all the time, for various reasons.  I can't
> > back it up, but my hunch is that bugs and misconfigurations (i.e. write
> > cache) are more often the root cause for filesystem inconsistencies.
> >
> > IMHO, focusing on physical disk failure rates is focusing too narrowly,
> > but I suppose I'm just joining the chorus of hunches and anecdotes now.
> Actually there's quite a lot of evidence of this, even though there's
> no precise estimate - not least of which these populations are
> constantly dying and reemerging, and can be batch (firmware version)
> specific. This is only the most recent such story on linux-btrfs@ (and
> warning, this reads like an alien autopsy):
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200708034407.ge10...@hungrycats.org/
> fsck.btrfs is a no op, same as fsck.xfs. And recently the actual
> repair utility dissuades users from running it casually.
> COW file systems are different. ZFS has no fsck to speak of, it can be
> harrassed badly by hardware/firmware bugs too, and yet there aren't
> many people who consider ZFS a problemed file system. How would the
> story of Btrfs be different either without dm-log-writes to this day,
> or had it already arrived in 2010?

That is because anyone who questions the perfection of ZFS is quickly
burned at a stake.

I don't know what it is about filesystems turning into religions that
do not brook questioning but what I am seeing in these emails is what
turns me off of btrfs every time it is brought up in the same way I
couldn't stand reiser, ZFS, or various other filesystems..  I realize
filesystems take a lot of faith as people have to put something they
value into a leap of faith it will be there the next day.. but it
seems to morph quickly into some sort of fanatical evangelical

So a good reason why no one brings it up.. you learn quickly that
questioning the perfection of any filesystem will fill your inbox with
tirades from people.

Stephen J Smoogen.
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