On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 02:52:56PM +0000, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry I really thought I could accomplish this with BPF, but ref tracking is
> just too complicated to work properly with BPF. I forward ported my ref
> verification patch to the latest kernel, you can find it in the btrfs-readdir
> branch of my btrfs-next tree here
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git
Thanks.
Now, I have to ask: how safe is this kernel btrfs-wise? I'm ok if it
crashes, but much less so if it damages my filesysetem.
I spent over a week recovering from the last corruption that happened when I
moved to 4.11 (and retreated back to 4.9).
>From other reports you've seen, has 4.11/4.12 been stable enough for others,
and is 4.13-rc (which your branch is based on, correct?) safe enough in your
opinion?
(and yes, just asking for your opinion, I totally understand that you can't
predict all bugs, and you can't give me a 100% assurance)
I do have a backup, but it indeed takes days to recover, and over a week if
the kernel also damages the other FS on that system, which is smaller, but
has maybe 100x the amount of files.
For now, the problem in the subject line, happens rarely-ish (2-3 weeks?)
although if I remove sleeps in my snapshot creation and rotation, it may
start happening more often again.
Thanks,
Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
--
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
