This. So much this. After being burned badly by the documentation / wiki etc making RAID5/6 seem stable, I think its a joke how the features of BTRFS are promoted.
A lot that is marked as 'Implemented' or 'Complete' is little more than a "In theory, it works" - but will eat your data. Having a simple reference as to the status of what is going on, and what will eat your data would probably save Tb's of data in the next few months and lots of reputation for BTRFS... On 11/09/16 18:55, Waxhead wrote: > I have been following BTRFS for years and have recently been starting to > use BTRFS more and more and as always BTRFS' stability is a hot topic. > Some says that BTRFS is a dead end research project while others claim > the opposite. > > Taking a quick glance at the wiki does not say much about what is safe > to use or not and it also points to some who are using BTRFS in production. > While BTRFS can apparently work well in production it does have some > caveats, and finding out what features is safe or not can be problematic > and I especially think that new users of BTRFS can easily be bitten if > they do not do a lot of research on it first. > > The Debian wiki for BTRFS (which is recent by the way) contains a bunch > of warnings and recommendations and is for me a bit better than the > official BTRFS wiki when it comes to how to decide what features to use. > > The Nouveau graphics driver have a nice feature matrix on it's webpage > and I think that BTRFS perhaps should consider doing something like that > on it's official wiki as well > > For example something along the lines of .... (the statuses are taken > our of thin air just for demonstration purposes) > > Kernel version 4.7 > +----------------------------+--------+-----+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+ > > | Feature / Redundancy level | Single | Dup | Raid0 | Raid1 | Raid10 | > Raid5 | Raid 6 | > +----------------------------+--------+-----+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+ > > | Subvolumes | Ok | Ok | Ok | Ok | Ok | Bad > | Bad | > +----------------------------+--------+-----+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+ > > | Snapshots | Ok | Ok | Ok | Ok | Ok | > Bad | Bad | > +----------------------------+--------+-----+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+ > > | LZO Compression | Bad(1) | Bad | Bad | Bad(2)| Bad | > Bad | Bad | > +----------------------------+--------+-----+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+ > > | ZLIB Compression | Ok | Ok | Ok | Ok | Ok | > Bad | Bad | > +----------------------------+--------+-----+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+ > > | Autodefrag | Ok | Bad | Bad(3)| Ok | Ok | > Bad | Bad | > +----------------------------+--------+-----+-------+-------+--------+-------+--------+ > > > (1) Some explanation here... > (2) Some explanation there.... > (3) And some explanation elsewhere... > > ...etc...etc... > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability > matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere > where it is easy to find. It would be nice to archive old matrix'es as > well in case someone runs on a bit older kernel (we who use Debian tend > to like older kernels). In my opinion it would make things bit easier > and perhaps a bit less scary too. Remember if you get bitten badly once > you tend to stay away from from it all just in case, if you on the other > hand know what bites you can safely pet the fluffy end instead :) -- Steven Haigh Email: net...@crc.id.au Web: https://www.crc.id.au Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
