On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:44:20 -0700 as excerpted: > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Marc Haber <mh+linux-bt...@zugschlus.de> >> wrote: >>> And this is really something to be proud of? I mean, this is a file >>> system that is part of the vanilla linux kernel, not marked as >>> experimental or something, and you're still concerned about file >>> systems that were made a year ago? This is a new experience for me. >> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/ > tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.4.4 >> >> "Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for any uses >> other than benchmarking and review. The Btrfs disk format is not yet >> finalized." >> >> I thought the 2nd sentence was removed a long time ago but I'm seeing it >> in the current branch and 4.1.y. Is this a bug? > > AFAIK, this is the still "semi-scary" wording that was left after the > _really_ scary "eat your babies" level experimental warning was stripped, > and it remains more or less literally the case, certainly the last > sentence,
The Btrfs wiki main page says the format is no longer unstable. So OK, I guess those are compatible. Not yet finalized does not mean unstable I guess? > And that was when btrfs still had the much more severe experimental label > applied, so particularly now that it's gone, Right the experimental label is probably what I'm thinking of. Nevertheless the above does sound a bit dire. I mean, for raid56 it's totally reasonable, and maybe even any multiple device stuff just because of the lack of faulty device handling, in particular notification. But I'm not sure ZFS on Linux (or even FreeBSD) have any of that either. -- 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
