> > Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if it > > is really so fragile. > > However, complaining about the fragility of a still in development > and > marked experimental filesystem would seem disingenuous at best. [snip paragraphs of tut-tutting] > IOW, yes, btrfs is to be considered fragile at this point.
So you re-stated my position. I gave btrfs a chance but it is still apparently far more fragile than ext4 when corruption is introduced -- although btrfs is the filesystem of the two which is specifically designed to provide internal fault tolerance and resilience. Is there a fine line between "user feedback" and "disingenuous complaining" that I am not aware of? The data in question is not that important, though I would like to have it back considering it should mostly still be there as on the ext4 volumes. 40MB of bad sectors on one 2TB disk in a 6TB volume does not seem like a lot. Even if the whole beginning of the volume was wiped out surely there is the equivalent of backup superblocks? I can hack if I could just get a clue where to start. -- Ryan C. Underwood, <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
