On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 02:40:19PM -0400, Chris Mason spake thusly: > Well, then I'm surprised btrfs doesn't crash more violently and more > often ;)
Note that this will be a problem that btrfs must properly manage. And it must be done MUCH better than a certain previously semi-popular filesystem did. The expectation needs to be set that due to the much more complicated in-memory structures being used by modern filesystems that your hardware must be rock solid or you will get filesystem corruption. I ran the other filesystem on hundreds of machines with no problem (all solid hardware) but I regularly run into people (just this morning, for example) who swear that *every*single*time* they created a filesystem with that other fs it was corrupted in a short amount of time. It just doesn't add up. First impressions and early rumors can doom a filesystem (although clearly other factors such as personalities and politics can be at play as well). > Do you think you're hitting a memtest bug or is the HW really bad? A bug in memtest? It's been rock solid for years hasn't it? Maybe some new memory configuration or MMU might freak it out. Seems quite unlikely compared to the chances of actually having bad RAM. -- Tracy Reed http://tracyreed.org
pgpVUkH1Jj0F4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
