On 2017-02-17 03:26, Duncan wrote:
Imran Geriskovan posted on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:42:09 +0200 as excerpted:
Opps.. I mean 4.9/4.10 Experiences
On 2/16/17, Imran Geriskovan <[email protected]> wrote:
What are your experiences for btrfs regarding 4.10 and 4.11 kernels?
I'm still on 4.8.x. I'd be happy to hear from anyone using 4.1x for a
very typical single disk setup. Are they reasonably stable/good enough
for this case?
I ran 4.9 and have been on 4.10 since before rc1. Btrfs has been fine
here, tho there have been some late rc7/8 fixes. I've had and still have
some 4.10 issues, but they're amdgpu, not btrfs related. (Unfortunately,
between working long hours and being sick partly as a result, I've had
little time to report them, but booting with amdgpu.dpm=0 has let me
continue running 4.10-git, tho I don't know exactly why if I'm not going
to have time to report problems anyway.)
FWIW, I've had largely similar experiences since about 4.0. I'm also
not using anything more complicated than raid1/raid0, and I stay on top
of monitoring for all my systems, but even accounting for that, I've had
no BTRFS issues that caused anything beyond minor inconvenience (that
is, no data loss, nothing that would have required taking the system
completely off-line to fix if it was the root filesystem, and no crashes
arising from BTRFS itself).
From what I've seen though, as long as you stay up to date and don't do
much more complicated than a raid1 or raid0 setup, don't use qgroups
(they're technically working, but they still have a significant
performance impact) and don't use lots of snapshots, you should be
relatively fine.
--
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
