On Tuesday 05 May 2015 12:33:38 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2015 06:56:20 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > I don't know about btrfs, seems like it's still in a testing-phase so > > > i'm not touching it yet. > > > > My understanding is that both zfs and btrfs on linux are fairly > > experimental. The codebase for zfs is much more mature in general, > > though its integration on Linux is recent. > > It's also based on an older version of ZFS, so we can expect stability to > improve where necessary, but little in the way of new features > (unless that has changed since I last used it and Sun have open sourced a > later release). > > > The codebase for btrfs > > changes rapidly, with quite a few regressions. I've never > > irrecoverably lost data on btrfs, but it wouldn't be my first choice > > for a production environment unless I basically did my own QC on the > > kernel. However, all my important data is on btrfs nonetheless (with > > a full backup to ext4 daily right now). > > I have a similar approach, although with duplicity backups to a file > server. I have had a couple of problems with btrfs on my laptop, > connected with unclean shutdowns. I didn't lose any data but the repair > process took a *long* time.
During a backup of a home directory I noticed loads of Chromium and Firefox crash/recovery files being copied over. However, I don't know if this is a btrfs problem, or the fact that I had to forcefully shut down KDE once or twice recently, because the desktop would not logout/shutdown normally. The fsck which ran when the machine rebooted did not revealed any problems. Is there a different recommended way for checking for fs errors? -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
