> Sorry, I pulled .38 out of my arse; I didn't mean to imply it was a
> meaningful number.
>
I would be happy if it becomes stable by your other guess. I mean
ubuntu 12-04. We shall see.
John
--
Lotusphere 2011
Register n
John Drescher
writes:
>> btrfs isn't stable. When it is, you'll need that kernel (e.g. 2.6.38),
>> not just a new btrfs-tools userland. So basically for production you
>> should just be waiting until 12.04 LTS.
>
> I would expect it to be 2.6.42 to 2.6.46. Since 2.6.38 is just 3 months away.
S
> btrfs isn't stable. When it is, you'll need that kernel (e.g. 2.6.38),
> not just a new btrfs-tools userland. So basically for production you
> should just be waiting until 12.04 LTS.
I would expect it to be 2.6.42 to 2.6.46. Since 2.6.38 is just 3 months away.
John
-
Andy Billington
writes:
> Btrfs-tools says 0.19 as that's what came in from the apt-get. Maybe
> newer btrfs versions may work better, but until they "qualify" for an
> apt-get in Ubuntu LTS, they aren't options.
btrfs-tools version is largely irrelevant, it's a tiny C wrapper to
generate approp
Shouldn't I be able to have two different nics on a host, on two
different, unrelated, public networks, and have two bridge devices on
the host, and some containers on one bridge and some containers on the
other bridge, and have all containers be able to talk to their
respective internet connec
