[gentoo-dev] Re: btrfs status and/was: preserve_old_lib

[Duncan]

Richard Yao posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:06:21 -0500 as excerpted:

> Have you tried ZFS? The kernel modules are in the portage tree and I am
> maintaining a FAQ regarding the status of Gentoo ZFS support at github:
>
> https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ
>
> Data stored on ZFS is generally safe unless you go out of your way to
> lose it (e.g. put the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs).

I haven't.

One reason is licensing issues.  I know they resolve to some degree for 
end users who don't distribute and for those only distributing sources, 
since the gpl isn't particularly concerned in that case, but it's still 
an issue that I'd prefer not to touch, personally (nothing against others 
doing so, just not me), so no zfs here.  There's a discussion that could 
be had beyond that and I'm tempted, but here isn't the place for it.

My reason for posting wasn't really that, anyway, it was the apparently 
common misconception out there that btrfs is basically ready and that 
they're just being conservative in switching off the experimental label.  
There's several posts a week on the btrfs list from people caught out 
trying to depend on it, asking about recovery tool status and the like, 
that they'd already /know/ the status of if they were using btrfs for 
testing, etc, it's only appropriate use atm, and it's simply not ready 
for that.

Additionally in the context of gentoo-dev, the post was to say, don't 
plan on btrfs stability for anything but pre-release versions of anything 
you might be maintaining this year (kernel, btrfs-progs and grub2 
packages excepted, but they don't depend on btrfs stability, they help 
create it).

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman