1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:53:50 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> From what I've seen as long as you keep things simple, and don't have |
4 |
> heavy loads, you're at least reasonably likely to get by unscathed. I'd |
5 |
> definitely keep good backups though. Just read the mailing lists, |
6 |
> or for kicks run xfs-test |
7 |
|
8 |
> Oh, and go ahead and try filling up your disk some time. If your kernel |
9 |
> is recent enough it might not panic when you get down to a few GB left. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I'm eager for the rise of btrfs - it IS the filesystem of the future. |
12 |
> However, that cuts both ways right now. |
13 |
|
14 |
That's about right... along with the caveat that if something /does/ go |
15 |
wrong on your not too corner-case, generally normal, lightly loaded |
16 |
system, while there are recovery tools for /some/ situations, the normal |
17 |
distribution btrfsck is read-only. The freshly sort-of available but |
18 |
still rather hidden in the DANGER, DON'T EVER USE branch error-correcting |
19 |
btrfsck, is still under very heavy stress testing internally by Oracle |
20 |
QA. (As a result of those tests, there's a load of fixes headed to Linus |
21 |
for inclusion, discovered just since 3.3-rc1. As a result of /that/ 3.3 |
22 |
should be the most stable btrfs yet, but that's still far from saying |
23 |
it's stable!) |
24 |
|
25 |
And yes, "filesystem of the future" DOES cut both ways, ATM. It's an apt |
26 |
description and I too am seriously looking forward to btrfs. But it's |
27 |
definitely NOT the "filesystem of now", for sure! =:^) |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |