covici posted on Sun, 11 Oct 2015 08:29:27 -0400 as excerpted: > Thanks, in the ext4 world, I have lvm and lots of things using separate > lvm's. I don't want to go back to partitions, if btrfs is that fragile, > maybe I should waita while yet. Or, I could use lvm and put btrfs on > top of that, but it seems strange to me.
Taking the larger picture perspective, I'd suggest that while btrfs arguably isn't "that fragile" if you're willing to work with it, it most definitely is of a status I characterize as "stabilizing, but not yet fully stable or mature", and as such, isn't likely to be the best choice for people who just want "sufficiently stable that I don't have to mess with it or worry about it", particularly if they're also the type that prefer to run "enterprise stable" or "debian stable" grade distros, which are, to put it mildly, not known for the up-to-dateness of the versions of various packages they ship. If that's a description of your comfort zone, then there's a basic incompatibility between your comfort zone and btrfs' current state, and btrfs probably isn't the right choice for you at this point. In which case, ext3/4, reiserfs (my old favorite, which I had very good experience with even with not so reliable hardware), xfs, or possibly zfs if you need the features and are willing to put the money into the hardware it requires for stability, are more mature and arguably appropriate choices. I had in mind to say something about the big-picture like that in an earlier reply, but forgot... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- 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
