On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:11:35AM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Given the maturing-but-not-yet-fully-stable-and-mature state of btrfs > today, being no further from a usable current backup than the data you're > willing to lose, at least worst-case, remains an even stronger > recommendation than it is on fully mature and stable filesystem, kernel > and hardware.
The usual rant about backups which I snipped is 110%[1] right, however I disagree that btrfs is worse than other filesystems for data safety. On one hand, btrfs: * is buggy * fails the KISS principle to a ridiculous degree * lacks logic people take for granted (especially on RAID) On the other, other filesystems: * suffer from silent data loss every time the disk doesn't notice an error! Allowing silent data loss fails the most basic requirement for a filesystem. Btrfs at least makes that loss noisy (single) so you can recover from backups, or handles it (redundant RAID). * don't have frequent snapshots to save you from human error (including other software) * make backups time-costly. rsync needs to at least stat everything, on a populated disk that's often half an hour or more, on btrfs a no-op backup takes O(1). So sorry, but I had enough woe with those "fully mature and stable" filesystems. Thus I use btrfs pretty much everywhere, backing up my crap every 24 hours, important bits every 3 hours. Meow! [1]. Above 100% as it's more true than people read it. -- Autotools hint: to do a zx-spectrum build on a pdp11 host, type: ./configure --host=zx-spectrum --build=pdp11 -- 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
