| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@×××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Have you tried ZFS? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Yes - but not terribly interested in doing that on linux. I do |
| 5 |
appreciate that it can be done, but still lacks raid-z reshaping, |
| 6 |
which means it isn't quite flexible enough. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> On 02/24/12 18:26, Duncan wrote: |
| 9 |
>> FWIW, in the rare event it breaks revdep-rebuild or the underlying |
| 10 |
>> rebuilding itself, I rely on my long set FEATURES=buildpkg and |
| 11 |
>> emerge -K. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I also use buildpkg, but I don't keep them around forever. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>> I'm not sure if that's a reference to the btrfs snapshots allowing |
| 16 |
>> rollbacks feature, or a hint that you're running it and worried |
| 17 |
>> about its stability underneath you... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That would be the former. I'm QUITE aware of its stability. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I've played around with it on a VM - I posted on my blog an experience |
| 22 |
with it around a year ago as well. It has come quite a way, but it is |
| 23 |
definitely not production quality. Xfs-tools is useful if you want to |
| 24 |
try breaking it - I think I posted on my blog an article about |
| 25 |
capturing linux kernel core dumps for debugging purposes - it panics |
| 26 |
quite readily. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If you do want to mess with it I'd recommend using the git kernel |
| 29 |
maintained by the btrfs team. It is obviously bleeding-edge, but due |
| 30 |
to the high pace of fixes it tends to be more stable than the version |
| 31 |
in the mainline kernel. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives