On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <r...@karlsbakk.net> wrote: >> Stable is a pretty subjective term; many don't even think ext4 is >> stable. I've used it on my personal machine since .30-31-ish without >> problems, and on a server w/raid 1 for about a year (btrfs + lxc is >> niiice, for VMs) also free of problems. >> >> However, if you've been on the list you know that some do encounter >> seemingly catastrophic problems, though the list is helpful in >> recovering data. So, it's really going to depends on your workload >> and integrity needs. I remeber someone recently using it for >> continuous build servers successfully > > The term stable may be subjective at times, but for btrfs to be stable, it > needs a working filesystem, with offline or online fsck abilities, and > allowing for what's in the idea of btrfs, that is, checksumming everything, > allowing snapshots and rollbacks et cetera. If btrfs is only stable as in > ext4, well, why not just use ext4? The whole reason for btrfs to exist is to > bring something new into the Linux world, and if those features aren't > stable, then btrfs isn't. It's as simple as that. Would you buy a Subaru (or > something) 4wd with a 2wd working?
whoa, relax; that's a terrible analogy ;-) ) the term stability is _always_ subjective ) fsck has nothing to do with the filesystem itself, and does not contribute to it's operational stability ) checksums work fine ) snapshots work fine ) rollbacks are an implementation detail using snapshots; has nothing to do w/filesystem, afiak ) ehm, i suppose you would use btrfs over ext4 because you need it's features? beats me; you decide :-) ) ^^^^ have proper backup/failover options and it won't matter which you choose ) i'm sure that's not a reason ;-) ) ^^^^ btrfs has several pending/potential features/patches/branches floating around such as raid5/6, hot data awareness, etc. -- these unimplemented features (likely) do not detract from the stability of what's implemented now i apologize for the terseness, but i'm not sure what you're after exactly -- you said you have been on the list for a year, and thus should already have a pretty good idea of the current state, and what you can/cannot do? this (vague and _subjective_) question pops up from time to time, along with questions about raid5/6, etc., and they pretty much receive the same response i gave you: ) not everything possible/interesting is planned ) not everything planned is implemented ) some people run into big problems ) the majority likely does not ) use at your own risk ) many, including myself and the previous responder, are currently using it for a wide range of capacities, successfully, and collectively believe the minds responsible for btrfs must be rather competent folk, because for the most part... things are pretty quiet around here :-) C Anthony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
