On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:38:15PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote: > From what I'm reading, thin metadata and nohole options were > introduced to make the FS more efficient. Does this mean that for > someone about to do mkfs.btrfs, it is actively recommended to use > these options?
If you're using older kernels, I'd avoid those options. I'd still avoid those options with current kernels unless you're intentionally looking for bugs. > Another pertinent question -- why aren't they default then? It has been one month since the last skinny-metadata fix (fixing a bug that was as old as the skinny-metadata feature itself) in 3.18-rc3. It has been two months since the last no-holes fix in 3.17.2. IMHO if an optional filesystem feature has had a significant bug fixed in the last six months, it probably shouldn't be enabled by default. ;) Skinny-metadata can be enabled after mkfs, though my benchmark results so far are mixed about whether the theoretical performance benefit practically materializes. No-holes is mostly useless unless you are a fan of huge sparse files.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
