On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Fajar A. Nugraha posted on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:49:47 +0700 as excerpted: > >> As for "lose their filesystems", are there recent ones that uses one of >> the three distros above, and is purely btrfs "fault"? The ones I can >> remember (from the post to this list) were broken on earlier kernels, or >> caused by bad disks.
> My system's old and has a bit of a problem with overheating in the > Phoenix summer, so has been suffering SATA resets > it's exactly this sort of > corner-case that filesystems need to be able to deal with IIRC XFS had corruption problems when used on top of LVM (or other block device that doesn't support barriers correctly), while using ext2/3/4 on the same block device will be "fine". Yet XFS doesn't have the mark of "unstable, highly experimental, do not use". People simply use the right (for them) fs for the right job. My point is yes, btrfs is new. And it's being developed at much faster rate than any other more-mature fs out there. And there are known cases of data loss on certain configuration of corner cases/"buggy" hardware and/or old version of kernel. But when used in the correct environment, btrfs can be a good choice, even for critical data. Of course IF the data were REALLY critical, and I REALLY need btrfs' features, and it were on an enterprise environment, I would've bought support from oracle linux (or SLES 12, when it's out, or whatever enterprise distro supporting btrfs which sells support contract) so I can have someone to turn to in case of problems, and (in some cases) transfer the risk/blame :D -- Fajar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
