This is a Mythbuntu system, and the latest they support is 14.04. Thanks for all the responses.
David On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 06:56 +1100, Gareth Pye wrote: > I wouldn't blame Ubuntu too much, 14.10 went out of support months ago > (which counts as a long time when it's only for people happy to > upgrade every 6 months). > > The kernel ppa's builds tend to run fine on the latest LTS & regular > releases, although they can cause issues (I've had some fun with > nvidia drivers at times). That ppa will get you to 4.3 or 4.4rc4. > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, David Hampton > > <mailingli...@dhampton.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 16:48 +0000, Duncan wrote: > >>> David Hampton posted on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 01:30:09 -0500 as excerpted: > >>> > >>> > Seems I need to upgrade my tools. That command was added in 3.18 and I > >>> > only have the 3.12 tools. > >>> > >>> Definitely so, especially because you're running raid6, which wasn't > >>> stable until 4.1 for both kernel and userspace. 3.12? I guess it did > >>> have the very basic raid56 support, but it's definitely nothing I'd > >>> trust, at that old not for btrfs in general, but FOR SURE not raid56. > >> > >> I've upgraded to the 4.2.0 kernel and the 4.0 btrfs-tools package. > > > > I think btrfs-progs 4.0 has a mkfs bug in it (or was that 4.0.1?) > > Anyway, even that is still old in Btrfs terms. I think Ubuntu needs to > > do better than this, or just acknowledge Btrfs is not supported, don't > > include btrfs-progs at all by default, and stop making it an install > > time option. > > > > > >> These are the latest that Ubuntu has packaged for 15.10, and I've pulled > >> them into my 14.10 based release. Is this recent enough, or do I need > >> to try the 4.3 kernel/tools build from the active development tree (that > >> will eventually become 16.04)? > > > > It's probably fine day to day, but if you ever were to need btrfs > > check or repair, you'd want the current version no matter what. There > > are just too many bug fixes and enhancements happening to not make > > that effort. You kinda have to understand that you're effectively > > testing Btrfs by using raid56. It is stabilizing, but it can hardly be > > called stable or even feature complete seeing as there are all sorts > > of missing failure notifications. > > > > More than anything else you need to be willing to lose everything on > > this volume, without further notice, i.e. you need a backup strategy > > that you're prepared to use without undue stress. If you can't do > > that, you need to look at another arrangement. Both LVM and mdadm > > raid6 + XFS are more stable. > > > > > > -- > > Chris Murphy > > -- > > 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 > > > -- 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
