1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:47:45 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> |
4 |
> wrote: |
5 |
>> moreover the && wont delete the lib if revdep-rebuild failed i think, |
6 |
>> so it should be even safer to copy/paste :) |
7 |
|
8 |
FWIW this is the preserved_libs feature/bug I ran into in early testing, |
9 |
that convinced me to turn it off. Running revdep-rebuild manually was |
10 |
far safer anyway, since at least then I /knew/ the status of various |
11 |
libs, they weren't preserved on first run, then arbitrarily deleted on |
12 |
second, even if it still broke remaining depending apps to do so. |
13 |
|
14 |
So if that was reliably fixed, I'd be FAR happier about enabling |
15 |
FEATURES=preserved-libs. I'm not sure I actually would as I like a bit |
16 |
more direct knowledge of stale libs on the system than the automated |
17 |
handling gives me, but at least I'd not have to worry about the so-called |
18 |
"preserved" libs STILL disappearing and leaving broken packages, if I DID |
19 |
enable it! |
20 |
|
21 |
So definitely ++ on this! =:^) |
22 |
|
23 |
> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking them? |
24 |
> Oh, if only btrfs were stable... |
25 |
|
26 |
FWIW, in the rare event it breaks revdep-rebuild or the underlying |
27 |
rebuilding itself, I rely on my long set FEATURES=buildpkg and emerge |
28 |
-K. In the even rarer event that too is broken, there's always manual |
29 |
untarring of the missing lib from the binpkg (I've had to do that once |
30 |
when gcc itself was broken due to an unadvised emerge -C that I knew |
31 |
might break things given the depclean warning, but also knew I could fix |
32 |
with an untar if it came to it, which it did), or if it comes to it, |
33 |
booting to backup and using ROOT= to emerge -K back to the working system. |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
[btrfs status discussion, skip if uninterested.] |
37 |
|
38 |
I'm not sure if that's a reference to the btrfs snapshots allowing |
39 |
rollbacks feature, or a hint that you're running it and worried about its |
40 |
stability underneath you... |
41 |
|
42 |
If it's the latter, you probably already know this, but if it's the |
43 |
former, and for others interested... |
44 |
|
45 |
I recently set the btrfs kernel options and merged btrfs-progs, then read |
46 |
up on the wiki and joined the btrfs list, with the plan being to get |
47 |
familiar with it and perhaps install it. |
48 |
|
49 |
From all the reports about it being an option for various distros, etc, |
50 |
now, and all the constant improvement reports, I had /thought/ that the |
51 |
biggest issue for stability was the lack of an error-correcting (not just |
52 |
detecting) fsck.btrfs, and that the restore tool announced late last |
53 |
year, that allows pulling data off of unmountable btrfs volumes was a |
54 |
reasonable workaround. |
55 |
|
56 |
What I found, even allowing for the fact that such lists get the bad |
57 |
reports and not the good ones, thus paint a rather worse picture of the |
58 |
situation than actually exists for most users, is that... |
59 |
|
60 |
BTRFS still has a rather longer way to go than I had thought. It's still |
61 |
FAR from stable, even for someone like myself that often runs betas and |
62 |
was prepared to keep (and use, if necessary) TESTED backups, etc. Maybe |
63 |
by Q4 this year, but also very possibly not until next year. I'd |
64 |
definitely NOT recommend that anyone run it now, unless you are |
65 |
SPECIFICALLY running it for testing and bug reporting purposes with |
66 |
"garbage" data (IOW, data that you're NOT depending on, at the btrfs |
67 |
level, at all) that you are not only PREPARED to lose, but EXPECT to |
68 |
lose, perhaps repeatedly, during your testing. |
69 |
|
70 |
IOW, there's still known untraced and unfixed active data corruption bugs |
71 |
remaining. Don't put your data on btrfs at this point unless you EXPECT |
72 |
to have it corrupted, and want to actively help in tracing and patching |
73 |
the problems! |
74 |
|
75 |
Additionally, for anyone who has been interested in the btrfs RAID |
76 |
capacities, striped/raid0 it handles, but its raid1 and raid10 capacities |
77 |
are misnamed. At present, it's strictly two-way-mirror ONLY, there's no |
78 |
way to do N-way (N>2) mirroring aside from layering on top of say mdraid, |
79 |
at all, and of course layering on top of mdraid loses the data integrity |
80 |
guarantees at that level, btrfs still has just the one additional copy it |
81 |
can fall back on. This SERIOUSLY limits btrfs data integrity |
82 |
possibilities in a 2+ drive failure scenario. |
83 |
|
84 |
btrfs raid5/6 isn't available yet, but the current roadmap says kernels |
85 |
3.4 or 3.5. Multi-mirror is supposed to be built on that code, tho the |
86 |
mentions of it I've seen are specifically triple-mirror, so it's unclear |
87 |
whether arbitrary N-way (N>3) mirroring as in true raid1 will be possible |
88 |
even then. But whether triple-way specifically or N-way (N>=3), given |
89 |
it's on top of raid5/6, to be introduced in 3.4/3.5, triple-way mirroring |
90 |
thus appears to be 3.5/3.6 at the earliest. |
91 |
|
92 |
So while I had gotten the picture that btrfs was stabilizing and it was |
93 |
mostly over-cautiousness keeping that experimental label around, that's |
94 |
definitely NOT the case. Nobody should really plan on /relying/ on it, |
95 |
even with backups, until at least late this year, and very possibly |
96 |
looking at 2013 now. |
97 |
|
98 |
So btrfs is still a ways out. =:^( |
99 |
|
100 |
Meanwhile, for anyone that's still interested in it at this point, note |
101 |
that the homepage wiki currently listed the btrfs-progs package is a |
102 |
stale copy on kernel.org, still read-only after the kernel.org breakin. |
103 |
The "temporary" but looking more and more permanent location is: |
104 |
|
105 |
http://btrfs.ipv5.de/index.php?title=Main_Page |
106 |
|
107 |
Also, regarding the gentoo btrfs-progs package, see my recently filed: |
108 |
|
109 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405519 |
110 |
|
111 |
-- |
112 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
113 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
114 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |