Forwarding to mailing list.
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Delivered-To: ahferro...@gmail.comReceived: by 10.37.50.211 with SMTP id y202csp1924867yby; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.249.66 with SMTP id ys2mr62584006pbc.82.1440544577187; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <su...@rockstor.com>Received: from d.spam.sonic.net (d.spam.sonic.net. [69.12.208.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vx5si35354577pab.143.2015.08.25.16.16.16 for <ahferro...@gmail.com> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.12.208.70 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of su...@rockstor.com) client-ip=69.12.208.70; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 69.12.208.70 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of su...@rockstor.com) smtp.mailfrom=su...@rockstor.com Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (a.spam-proxy.sonic.net [69.12.221.245]) by d.spam.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7PNGGMZ009978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ahferro...@gmail.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:16 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f42.google.com (mail-vk0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t7PNGE8V009751 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ahferro...@gmail.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:14 -0700 Received: by vkif69 with SMTP id f69so74864216vki.3 for <ahferro...@gmail.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0X-Received: by 10.52.189.140 with SMTP id gi12mr41615828vdc.53.1440544574156; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.60.10 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55dc8f96.2010...@gmail.com>References: <1440516154.040713...@apps.rackspace.com> <55dc8f96.2010...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:13 -0700Message-ID: <capf83mt9gpilbp_uguywvep2unjixwlqxnkaynhs28j0ic-...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims From: Suman Chakravartula <su...@rockstor.com> To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZROrxpATBi5oHFe2nYdIWU4ZYYHtXUHBbtsfTSUojBzNrKpHfLe2++p4q0l4guhROtpQnLYunB+pXXS7EBts8G+zy/e8oy2bI=
X-Sonic-ID: C;XpXWR39L5RGRGIs6ks1aLw== M;UtU4SH9L5RGRGIs6ks1aLw== X-Spam-Flag: No X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2015-08-25 11:22, Vincent Olivier wrote:Hi, I have been using Btrfs for almost a year now with a 16x4TB RAID10 and its 8x4TB RAID0 backup (using incremental snapshots diffs). I have always tried to stay at the latest stable kernel (currently 4.1.6). But I might be moving to Fedora 22 because Centos 7 has significant incompatibilities with the 4.1.x kernel series. I have seen the news about Bcachefs aiming to be Btrfs-complete while being extX-stable. What are the chances Bcachefs beats Btrfs at being the Linux kernel's next "official" file system ? I chose Btrfs over ZFS because it seemed like the only "next-gen" heir to ext4/xfs. I have been having a few problems with Btrfs myself. I have only one that remains unresolved : I haven't found the best way to mount Btrfs at boot time. "LABEL=" won't work for known reasons (I don't understand however why a mount can't do its own "device scan" transparently). "UUID=" won't work for unknown reasons (haven't got a reply on this, maybe it's the same as "LABEL="). And I will use /dev/* in fstab for stability reasons. Right now I'm mounting the fs manually after a "device scan" and picking up the first device that shows up in the "fi show" run. I can "live" with that but I suppose that things like this contribute to the feeling that Btrfs is actually still experimental contrarily to claims that it is production-ready. For my own sake and other's I would like to maintain (if nobody is already working on that nor needs any help) a centralized human-readable digest of known issues that would be featured prominently on top of the Btrfs wiki. I would merge the Gotchas page and the various known issues pages (including the various multi-device mount gotchas here and there). Answers ? Comments ? Help ?First off, I think this is a wonderful idea. The list of known issues isn't always particularly up to date, and isn't as trivial to find as it should be.
I think it's a great idea too and would like to contribute. Can someone please lead the way? -- Suman Chakravartula Founder @ Rockstor http://rockstor.com http://rockstor.com/blog http://forum.rockstor.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
