Yohoo! Well, slightly off-topic now.
It is a Debian derivative. Univention Corporate Server. uname -r says: 4.1.0-ucs190-amd64 So I am pretty fine with the kernel. But indeed, I have to think about getting a more up-to-date btrfs as I ran on resizing in the "File too large" issue so I had to use "max" instead of "+100G". No big deal, just a minor issue. I use btrfs to checksum all files stored there as I had several issues the last years where files got corrupted. Greetings Christian Am 02.11.2016 um 11:14 schrieb Adam Borowski: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:29:26AM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:18:03AM +0100, Christian Völker wrote: >>> thanks for the quick reply. Regarding version- I prefer to use stable >>> Linux versions....and I am not going to upgrade just btrfs outside of >>> the verndors builds. So I am stuck happily with this version. And I run >>> Linux since more than 10years, so I am really fine with it, I guess :D >> Well, btrfs-progs 0.19 was last released several years ago. If your >> kernel is of the same kind of age, then you're going to be seeing a >> whole load of really nasty data-corrupting or filesystem-breaking bugs >> which have since been fixed. Basically, if something goes wrong with >> your FS when you're running a kernel that old, the main rsponse you'll >> get is, "well, that was silly of you, wasn't it?", and you'll have to >> make a new filesystem and restore from your backups and hope it >> doesn't happen again. > -progs 0.19 imply kernel 2.6.32 which comes from btrfs' infancy, when it > was hardly merged into mainline. It's buggier than experimental features > like RAID5/6 nowadays. > >> I would currently recommend running a 4.4 kernel or later. If you >> want a "stable" kernel version from a distribution, and want some kind >> of support for it when it goes wrong, you're probably going to have to >> pay someone (Red Hat or SuSE, most likely) to support your >> configuraion. > Kernels around 3.16 or so are pretty reliable -- ones I'm using on > production are 3.13 and 3.14, without a single issue. > > As 2.6.32 is for you "stable" rather than "ancient and unsupported", I guess > you're on RHEL or a derivative. For them, 3.10 is the next stable, which > is on the verge of what could be reasonable (but I still second Hugo's > advice of using at least the current LTS kernel, ie 4.4). > > TL;DR: > DO NOT USE BTRFS ON ANCIENT KERNELS!!1!elebenty-one! > > > Meow! -- 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
