On 25 September 2015 at 15:51, Hugo Mills <h...@carfax.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 03:36:18PM +0200, Sjoerd wrote: >> Thanks all for the feedback. Still doubting though to go for 4.2.1 or not. >> Main reason is that I am currently running 4.1.7 on my laptop which seems to >> work fine and had some issues with the 4.2.0 kernel. No issues I thing that >> were btrfs related, but more related to my nvidia card. Anyway switching back >> to 4.1.7 resolved those, so I am a bit holding back to try the 4.2.1 version >> ;) >> Anyway I'll see and can always revert back if I don't like it ;) > > If 4.1.7 is working OK for you, stick with it. It's getting much > less important now, as btrfs matures, to keep up with the _very_ > latest. Purely on gut feeling about issues we see on IRC and here, > 3.19 or later would be reasonable at the moment.
Similar here: I am sticking with 3.19.2 which has proven to work fine for me (backup systems with btrfs on lvm, lots of snapshots/subvolumes and occasional rebalance, no fancy/fresh stuff like btrfs-raid, online compression or subvolume quota, though this last one is tempting in my use case). b. -- 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
