Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> writes: > On 6 August 2014 03:46, Russell Coker <russ...@coker.com.au> wrote: >> Package: debian-installer >> Severity: normal >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg36461.html >> >> BTRFS has some issues that can cause system lockups, filesystem deadlocks >> that >> prevent writing to disk, and other problems. After some discussion on the >> BTRFS mailing list (see the above URL for the archive) the consensus seems to >> be that we should have a warning. BTRFS isn't at the stage where someone >> with >> little knowledge of it can just use it. To have it work reliably the >> sysadmin >> needs to know more about it than for other filesystems. >> > > I disagree and the assessment here is unjust. By default we offer > ext4, [ with lvm2 [ with cryptsetup LUKS ] ]. mdadm raid needs > additional setup. > For none of the above, we show any warnings. > In the manual partitioning, again ext4 is the default. To get to > BTRFS, one needs to change from ext4 to it, which imho there is a > sufficient amount of hoops to jump through. > I wouldn't want to loose ability to install on to btrfs, since > developers have need to have working installers with btrfs. > From UX perspective, users don't read warnings =) > When people ask me if they should use btrfs, or if btrfs is ready my > reply is usually "if you have to ask, you shouldn't use it. Instead > study and benchmark it to know for sure what you are getting into with > your workload." > > ext4 is Debian's and Ubuntu's default filesystem for upcoming releases.
Nine years since this bug was filed, and three years since Fedora has been using btrfs by default, I think this bug can be closed. Any objections? Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
