Re: Is stability a joke?

On 09/19/2016 05:38 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:31:42PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> [...] A lot of stuff that may seem obvious to us after years of >> working with BTRFS isn't going to be to a newcomer, and it's a lot more >> likely that some random person will

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:38:36PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>I'm not sure if the brfsck is really all that helpful to user as much > >>as it is for developers to better learn about the failure vectors of > >>the file system. > > > >ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I

Re: stability matrix (was: Is stability a joke?)

+1 for all your changes with the following comments in addition... On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:27 +0200, David Sterba wrote: > That's more like a usecase, thats out of the scope of the tabular > overview. But we have an existing page UseCases that I'd like to > transform to a more structured and

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 14:27, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I used it (and still didn't last year when I tried to use it on an old disk). "Not working" here means "much less

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I used it (and still >> didn't last year when I tried to use it on an old disk). "Not working" >> here means "much less data is readable from the filesystem

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 00:08, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: Right, well I'm vaguely curious why ZFS, as different as it is, basically take the position that if the hardware went so batshit that they can't unwind it on a normal mount, then an fsck

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:31:42PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-12 12:51, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:40AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>> Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting point. > >>> I'm not sure we can fit

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:32:14AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-18 23:47, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS > >>is healthy. > > > >I've

Re: stability matrix (was: Is stability a joke?)

Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:14:04AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > In general: > - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for >   which kernel version the feature-status of each row was  >   revised/updated the last time and especially by whom. >   If a core dev

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:08:55AM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > At the end of the day I'm not sure fsck really matters. If the filesystem > is getting corrupted enough that both copies of metadata are broken, > there's something fundamentally wrong with that setup (hardware bugs, > software

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 22:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:00:44AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: To be entirely honest, both zero-log and super-recover could probably be pretty easily integrated into btrfs check such that it detects when they need to be run and does so. zero-log

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 23:47, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS is healthy. I've found issues with OOB dedup (clone/extent-same): 1. Don't dedup data that has not been

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Right, well I'm vaguely curious why ZFS, as different as it is, > basically take the position that if the hardware went so batshit that > they can't unwind it on a normal mount, then an fsck probably can't > help either... they still

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS > is healthy. I've found issues with OOB dedup (clone/extent-same): 1. Don't dedup data that has not been committed--either call fsync() on it, or

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:00:44AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > To be entirely honest, both zero-log and super-recover could probably be > pretty easily integrated into btrfs check such that it detects when they > need to be run and does so. zero-log has a very well defined situation in >

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 17:23, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems. Ideally, we should be handling things like Windows does. Preform slightly better checking when reading data, and if

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 16:26, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 2. We're developing new features

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Wed, Sep 14 2016, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Do you think the broader btrfs > community is interested in citations and curated links to discussions? I'm definitely interested. Something I would love to see is a list or description of the tests that a particular version of btrfs passes or

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems.  Ideally, > we  > should be handling things like Windows does.  Preform slightly > better  > checking when reading data, and if we see an error, flag the > filesystem  > for

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn >> wrote: >> >> > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn > wrote: > > > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check can fix > > issues in any associated metadata. Part of merging a new

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 2. We're developing new features without making sure that check can fix > issues in any associated metadata. Part of merging a new feature needs to > be proving that fsck can handle fixing any issues in the

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 14:01, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: - btrfsck status e.g. btrfs-progs 4.7.2 still warns against using --repair, and lists it under dangerous options also; while

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> - btrfsck status >> e.g. btrfs-progs 4.7.2 still warns against using --repair, and lists >> it under dangerous options also; while that's true, Btrfs can't be >>

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Donnerstag, 15. September 2016, 07:55:36 CEST schrieb Kai Krakow: > Am Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:20:20 -0400 > > schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : > > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > > >> Martin Steigerwald

Re: Is stability a joke?

Hello Nicholas. Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2016, 21:05:52 CEST schrieb Nicholas D Steeves: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:20:20AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: […] > > As far as documentation though, we [BTRFS] really do need to get our act > >

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:20:20 -0400 schrieb "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" : > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > >> Martin Steigerwald wrote: > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > >> That is exactly the

Re: stability matrix (was: Is stability a joke?)

Hey. As for the stability matrix... In general: - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for   which kernel version the feature-status of each row was    revised/updated the last time and especially by whom.   If a core dev makes a statement on a particular feature, this  

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-15 11:07, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:31:42PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: In general yes in this case, but performance starts to degrade exponentially beyond a certain point. The difference between (for example) 10 and 20 snapshots is not as much as

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 07:36:57PM +0200, Zoiled wrote: > Ok good to know , however from the Debian wiki as well as the link to the > mailing list only LZO compression are mentioned (as far as I remember) and I > have no idea myself how much difference there is between LZO and the ZLIB > code, I

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:31:42PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > In general yes in this case, but performance starts to degrade exponentially > beyond a certain point. The difference between (for example) 10 and 20 > snapshots is not as much as between 1000 and 1010. The problem here is

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:20:20AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > >>Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >>>Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > >>Thing is:

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 02:44:35PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Just to cut yourself some slack, you could skip 3.14 because it's EOL > now, and just go from 4.4. Don't the btrfs-tools used to create the filesystem also play a huge role in this game? Greetings Marc --

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Dienstag, 13. September 2016, 07:28:38 CEST schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: > >>> On Mon, Sep

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Things listed as TBD status: 1. Seeding: Seems to work fine the couple of times I've tested it, however I've only done very light testing, and the whole feature is

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016,

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-13 04:38, Timofey Titovets wrote: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I suggest to mark RAID1/10 as 'mostly ok' as on btrfs RAID1/10 is safe to data, but not for application that uses it. i.e. it not hide I/O error even if it's can be masked.

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I suggest to mark RAID1/10 as 'mostly ok' as on btrfs RAID1/10 is safe to data, but not for application that uses it. i.e. it not hide I/O error even if it's can be masked. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg56739.html /* Retest it with

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Great. I made to minor adaption. I added a link to the Status page to my warning in before the kernel log by feature page. And I also mentioned that at the time the page was last updated the latest

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: >>

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > > > I

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability > > > > matrix

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > Things listed as TBD status: > 1. Seeding: Seems to work fine the couple of times I've tested it, however > I've only done very light testing, and the whole feature is pretty much > undocumented. Mostly OK.

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability > > > matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere > > > where

Re: Is stability a joke?

Zoiled wrote: Chris Mason wrote: On 09/11/2016 04:55 AM, Waxhead wrote: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim the

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 13:29, Filipe Manana wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature /

Re: Is stability a joke?

Chris Mason wrote: On 09/11/2016 04:55 AM, Waxhead wrote: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim the opposite.

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-12 12:51, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:40AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting point. I'm not sure we can fit everything into one table, some combinations do not bring new information and we'd need

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability matrix for the

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 12:27, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere where it is easy to find. It would be nice to

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:40AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting point. > > I'm not sure we can fit everything into one table, some combinations do > > not bring new information and we'd need n-dimensional matrix to get the

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability > > matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere > > where it is easy to find. It would be nice to archive old matrix'es as > >

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-12 10:27, David Sterba wrote: Hi, first, thanks for choosing a catchy subject, this always helps. While it will serve as another beating stick to those who enjoy bashing btrfs, I'm glad to see people answer in a constructive way. On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:55:21AM +0200, Waxhead

Re: Is stability a joke?

Hi, first, thanks for choosing a catchy subject, this always helps. While it will serve as another beating stick to those who enjoy bashing btrfs, I'm glad to see people answer in a constructive way. On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:55:21AM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > I have been following BTRFS for years

Re: Is stability a joke?

Hi, On 12/09/2016 14:59, Michel Bouissou wrote: > [...] > I never had problems with lzo compression, although I suspect that it (in > conjuction with snapshots) adds much fragmentation that may relate to the > extremely bad performance I get over time with mechanical HDs. I had about 30 btrfs

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 09/11/2016 04:55 AM, Waxhead wrote: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim the opposite. Taking a quick glance at

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-12 08:59, Michel Bouissou wrote: Le lundi 12 septembre 2016, 08:20:20 Austin S. Hemmelgarn a écrit : FWIW, here's a list of what I personally consider stable (as in, I'm willing to bet against reduced uptime to use this stuff on production systems at work and personal systems at

Re: Is stability a joke?

Le lundi 12 septembre 2016, 08:20:20 Austin S. Hemmelgarn a écrit : > FWIW, here's a list of what I personally consider stable (as in, I'm > willing to bet against reduced uptime to use this stuff on production > systems at work and personal systems at home): > 1. Single device mode, including

Re: Is stability a joke?

Le dimanche 11 septembre 2016 12:23:23, vous avez écrit : > First off: On my systems BTRFS definately runs too stable for a research > project. Actually: I have zero issues with stability of BTRFS on *any* of > my systems at the moment and in the last half year. I have been using BTRFS for 3+

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-11 13:11, Duncan wrote: Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:05:03 +0200 as excerpted: Just add another column called "Production ready". Then research / ask about production stability of each feature. The only challenge is: Who is authoritative on that? I´d certainly

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 2016-09-11 09:02, Hugo Mills wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature been implemented matrix. Not when it is

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: >> Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: >> > The Nouveau graphics driver have a

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: >> Martin Steigerwald wrote: >> >Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: >> Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > That is exactly the same reason I don't edit the wiki myself. I could of > course get it started and hopefully someone will correct what I write, but I > feel that if I start this off I don't have deep enough knowledge to do a > proper

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:05:03 +0200 as excerpted: > Just add another column called "Production ready". Then research / ask > about production stability of each feature. The only challenge is: Who > is authoritative on that? I´d certainly ask the developer of a feature, >

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 16:54:25 CEST schrieben Sie: > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > > The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:02:21 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > >Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature been

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:39:14 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage > > and I think that BTRFS perhaps should

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 14:30:51 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > > I think what would be a good next step would be to ask developers / users > > about feature stability and then update the wiki. If thats important to > > you, I suggest you invest some energy in doing that. And ask for help. > >

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Waxhead wrote: > Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > Thing is: This just seems to be when has a feature been implemented > matrix. > Not when it is considered to be stable. I

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage and I think that BTRFS perhaps should consider doing something like that on it's official wiki as well BTRFS also has a

Re: Is stability a joke?

on and my posting to the mailing list I hope to do exactly that. If you choose the complaining path, I am out, and rather spend my time enjoying to use BTRFS as I do. Maybe reviewing that compress=lzo thing. As I first read your subject "Is stability a joke?" I wondered whether to even

Re: Is stability a joke?

Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 13:43:59 CEST schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > >> The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage > > >> and I think that BTRFS perhaps should consider doing something like > > >> that > > >> on it's official wiki as well > > > > > > BTRFS

Re: Is stability a joke?

lso do not support > > compression yet. They even do not support big metadata. > > > > https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/SUSE-SLES/12/#fate-317221 > > > > Interestingly enough RedHat only supports BTRFS as a technology preview, > > even with RHEL 7. >

Re: Is stability a joke?

Am Sonntag, 11. September 2016, 10:55:21 CEST schrieb Waxhead: > I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to > use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. > Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim > the

Re: Is stability a joke?

This. So much this. After being burned badly by the documentation / wiki etc making RAID5/6 seem stable, I think its a joke how the features of BTRFS are promoted. A lot that is marked as 'Implemented' or 'Complete' is little more than a "In theory, it works" - but will eat your data. Having a

Is stability a joke?

I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim the opposite. Taking a quick glance at the wiki does not say much about what is