Quoting Mark Constable ([email protected]): > On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 03:54:06 PM Serge Hallyn wrote: > > > Does this mean that btrfs is considered a second class option > > > with the primary focus and most of your future lxd backing > > > store effort being put into LVM? > > > > It is, for a few reasons. > > Sorry to persist with this but would you mind elaborating briefly on > some of those reasons or point me to further discussion please?
We didn't want to depend on a single fs. Also, btrfs still has some performance issues (esp at fsync, which kills apt-get), and people still seem to hit corruption with it (though other people seem to run it rock-solid with no issues). > I have invested heavily in btrfs so I am a little "shocked" at this > news. If I want to stick to btrfs then would I be better off relying > on legacy lxc? I don't think we'll be dropping the support we have. We definately won't be adding support for zfs, overlayfs, etc. Can you say a bit more about how your usage depends on btrfs? -serge _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
